History for ready reference, Volume 2, El Dorado to Greaves

by J. N. Larned

France in 1154 At the Accession of Henry II. (Anjou)
Showing how he Acquired his fiefs in France.
Acquired By Henry From Matilda.
Acquired By Henry From His Father Goeffrey Of Anjou.
Acquired By Henry From His Wife Eleanor Of Aquitaine
French Crown Lands
Other Vassal Lands.
------------------
France in 1180
At The Accession Of Philip Augustus
Showing The Lands Acquired By The Crown During His Reign.
Crown Lands At Accession Of Philip
Acquired During His Reign Form Angevins
Acquired During His Reign From Other Vassals
Angevin Lands (1223)
Other Vassal Lands
------------------
France at the death of Philip IV (The Fair) 1314
------------------
France at the Peace of Bretigny
-------End: Maps of France----------------
{1169}
"From the moment of Charles IV.'s death [A. D. 1328], Edward
III. of England buoyed himself up with a notion of his title
to the crown of France, in right of his mother Isabel, sister
to the three last kings. We can have no hesitation in
condemning the injustice of this pretension. Whether the Salic
law were or were not valid, no advantage could be gained by
Edward. Even if he could forget the express or tacit decision
of all France, there stood in his way Jane, the daughter of
Louis X., three [daughters] of Philip the Long, and one of
Charles the Fair. Aware of this, Edward set up a distinction,
that, although females were excluded from succession, the same
rule did not apply to their male issue; and thus, though his
mother Isabel could not herself become queen of France, she
might transmit a title to him. But this was contrary to the
commonest rules of inheritance; and if it could have been
regarded at all, Jane had a son, afterwards the famous king of
Navarre [Charles the Bad], who stood one degree nearer to the
crown than Edward. It is asserted in some French authorities
that Edward preferred a claim to the regency immediately after
the decease of Charles the Fair, and that the States-General,
or at least the peers of France, adjudged that dignity to
Philip de Valois. Whether this be true or not, it is clear
that he entertained projects of recovering his right as early,
though his youth and the embarrassed circumstances of his
government threw insuperable obstacles in the way of their
execution. He did liege homage, therefore, to Philip for
Guienne, and for several years, while the affairs of Scotland
engrossed his attention, gave no signs of meditating a more
magnificent enterprise. As he advanced in manhood, and felt
the consciousness of his strength, his early designs grew
mature, and produced a series of the most important and
interesting revolutions in the fortunes of France."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part l.
See, also, SALIC LAW: APPLICATION TO THE
REGAL SUCCESSION IN FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
The beginning of the "Hundred Years War."
It was not until 1337 that Edward III. felt prepared to assert
formally his claim to the French crown and to assume the title
of King of France. In July of the following year he began
undertakings to enforce his pretended right, by crossing with
a considerable force to the continent. He wintered at Antwerp,
concerting measures with the Flemings, who had espoused his
cause, and arranging an alliance with the emperor-king of
Germany, whose name bore more weight than his arms. In 1339 a
formal declaration of hostilities was made and the long
war--the Hundred Years War, as it has been called--of English
kings for the sovereignty of France, began. "This great war
may well be divided into five periods. The first ends with the
Peace of Bretigny in 1360 (A. D. 1337-1360), and includes the
great days of Crécy [1346] and Poitiers [1356], as well as the
taking of Calais: the second runs to the death of Charles the
Wise in 1380; these are the days of Du Guesclin and the
English reverses: the third begins with the renewal of the war
under Henry V. of England, and ends with the Regency of the
Duke of Bedford at Paris, including the field of Azincourt
[1415] and the Treaty of Troyes (A. D. 1415-1422): the fourth
is the epoch of Jeanne Darc and ends with the second
establishment of the English at Paris (A. D. 1428-1431): and
the fifth and last runs on to the final expulsion of the
English after the Battle of Castillon in 1453. Thus, though it
is not uncommonly called the Hundred Years War, the struggle
really extended over a period of a hundred and sixteen years."
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 4, chapters 1-7.
"No war had broken out in Europe, since the fall of the Roman
Empire, so memorable as that of Edward III. and his successors
against France, whether we consider its duration, its object,
or the magnitude and variety of its events. It was a struggle
of one hundred and twenty years, interrupted but once by a
regular pacification, where the most ancient and extensive
dominion in the civilised world was the prize, twice lost and
twice recovered in the conflict. ... There is, indeed, ample
room for national exultation at the names of Crecy, Poitiers
and Azincourt. So great was the disparity of numbers upon
those famous days, that we cannot, with the French historians,
attribute the discomfiture of their hosts merely to mistaken
tactics and too impetuous valour. ... These victories, and the
qualities that secured them, must chiefly be ascribed to the
freedom of our constitution, and to the superior condition of
the people. Not the nobility of England, not the feudal
tenants, won the battles of Crecy and Poitiers; for these were
fully matched in the ranks of France; but the yeomen who drew
the bow with strong and steady arms, accustomed to use it in
their native fields, and rendered fearless by personal
competence and civil freedom. ... Yet the glorious termination
to which Edward was enabled, at least for a time, to bring the
contest, was rather the work of fortune than of valour and
prudence. Until the battle of Poitiers [A. D. 1356] he had
made no progress towards the conquest of France. That country
was too vast, and his army too small, for such a revolution.
The victory of Crecy gave him nothing but Calais. ... But at
Poitiers he obtained the greatest of prizes, by taking
prisoner the king of France. Not only the love of freedom
tempted that prince to ransom himself by the utmost
sacrifices, but his captivity left France defenceless and
seemed to annihilate the monarchy itself. ... There is no
affliction which did not fall upon France during this
miserable period. ... Subdued by these misfortunes, though
Edward had made but slight progress towards the conquest of
the country, the regent of France, afterwards Charles V.,
submitted to the peace of Bretigni [A. D. 1360]. By this
treaty, not to mention less important articles, all Guienne,
Gascony, Poitou, Saintonge, the Limousin, and the Angoumois,
as well as Calais, and the county of Ponthieu, were ceded in
full sovereignty to Edward; a price abundantly compensating
his renunciation of the title of France, which was the sole
concession stipulated in return."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 2.
ALSO IN:
J. Froissart,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
book 1, chapters 1-212.
W. Longman, History of Edward III.,
volume 1, chapters 6-22.
F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France,
chapter 20.
D. F. Jamison,
Life and Times of Bertrand du Guesclin,
volume 1, chapters 4-10.
See, also, POITIERS, BATTLE OF.
{1170}
FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348.
The Black Plague.
"Epochs of moral depression are those, too, of great motality.
... In the last years of Philippe de Valois' reign, the
depopulation was rapid. The misery and physical suffering
which prevailed were insufficient to account for it; for they
had not reached the extreme at which they subsequently
arrived. Yet, to adduce but one instance, the population of a
single town, Narbonne, fell off in the space of four or five
years from the year 1399, by 500 families. Upon this too tardy
diminution of the human race followed extermination,--the great
black plague, or pestilence, which at once heaped up mountains
of dead throughout Christendom. It began in Provence, in the
year 1347, on All Saints' Day, continued sixteen months, and
carried off two-thirds of the inhabitants. The same wholesale
destruction befell Languedoc. At Montpellier, out of twelve
consuls, ten died. At Narbonne, 30,000 persons perished. In
several places, there remained only a tithe of the
inhabitants. All that the careless Froissart says of this
fearful visitation, and that only incidentally, is--'For at
this time there prevailed throughout the world generally a
disease called epidemy, which destroyed a third of its
inhabitants.' This pestilence did not break out in the north
of the kingdom until August, 1348, where it first showed
itself at Paris and St. Denys. So fearful were its ravages at
Paris, that, according to some, 800, according to others, 500,
daily sank under it. ... As there was neither famine at the time
nor want of food, but, on the contrary great abundance, this
plague was said to proceed from infection of the air and of
the springs. The Jews were again charged with this, and the
people cruelly fell upon them."
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 1.
See BLACK DEATH.
FRANCE: A. D. 1350.
Accession of King John II.
FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.
The States-General and Etienne Marcel.
"The disaster of Poitiers [1356] excited in the minds of the
people a sentiment of national grief, mixed with indignation
and scorn at the nobility who had fled before an army so
inferior in number. Those nobles who passed through the cities
and towns on their return from the battle were pursued with
imprecations and outrages. The Parisian bourgeoisie, animated
with enthusiasm and courage, took upon itself at all risks the
charge of its own defense; whilst, the eldest son of the king,
a youth of only nineteen, who had been one of the first to
fly, assumed the government as lieutenant of his father. It
was at the summons of this prince that the states assembled
again at Paris before the time which they had appointed. The
same deputies returned to the number of 800, of whom 400 were
of the bourgeoisie; and the work of reform, rudely sketched in
the preceding session, was resumed under the same influence,
with an enthusiasm which partook of the character of
revolutionary impulse. The assembly commenced by concentrating
its action in a committee of twenty-four members,
deliberating, as far as appears, without distinction of
orders; it then intimated its resolutions under the form of
petitions, which were as follow: The authority of the states
declared supreme in all affairs of administration and finance,
the impeachment of all the counsellors of the king, the
dismissal in a body of the officers of justice, and the
creation of a council of reformers taken from the three
orders; lastly, the prohibition to conclude any truce without
the assent of the three states, and the right on their part to
re-assemble at their own will without a royal summons. The
lieutenant of the king, Charles Duke of Normandy, exerted in
vain the resources of a precocious ability to escape these
imperious demands: he was compelled to yield everything. The
States governed in his name; but dissension, springing from
the mutual jealousy of the different orders, was soon
introduced into their body. The preponderating influence of
the bourgeois appeared intolerable to the nobles, who, in
consequence, deserted the assembly and retired home. The
deputies of the clergy remained longer at their posts, but
they also withdrew at last; and, under the name of the
States-General, none remained but the representatives of the
cities, alone charged with all the responsibilities of the
reform and the affairs of the kingdom. Bowing to a necessity
of central action, they submitted of their own accord to the
deputation of Paris; and soon, by the tendency of
circumstances, and in consequence of the hostile attitude of
the Regent, the question of supremacy of the states became a
Parisian question, subject to the chances of a popular émeute
and the guardianship of the municipal power. At this point
appears a man whose character has grown into historical
importance in our days from our greater facilities of
understanding it, Etienne [Stephen] Marcel, 'prévôt des
marchands'--that is to say, mayor of the municipality of
Paris. This échevin of the 14th century, by a remarkable
anticipation, designed and attempted things which seem to
belong only to recent revolutions. Social unity, and
administrative uniformity; political rights, co-extensive and
equal with civil rights; the principle of public authority
transferred from the crown to the nation; the States-General
changed, under the influence of the third order, into a
national representation; the will of the people admitted as
sovereign in the presence of the depositary of the royal
power; the influence of Paris over the provinces, as the head
of opinion and centre of the general movement; the democratic
dictatorship, and the influence of terror exercised in the
name of the common weal; new colours assumed and carried as a
sign of patriotic union and symbol of reform; the transference
of royalty itself from one branch of the family to the other,
with a view to the cause of reform and the interest of the
people--such were the circumstances and the scenes which have
given to our own as well as the preceding century their
political character. It is strange to find the whole of it
comprised in the three years over which the name of the Prévôt
Marcel predominates. His short and stormy career was, as it
were, a premature attempt at the grand designs of Providence,
and the mirror of the bloody changes of fortune through which
those designs were destined to advance to their accomplishment
under the impulse of human passions. Marcel lived and died for
an idea--that of hastening on, by the force of the masses, the
work of gradual equalisation commenced by the kings
themselves; but it was his misfortune and his crime to be
unrelenting in carrying out his convictions. To the
impetuosity of a tribune who did not shrink even from murder
he added the talent of organization; he left in the grand
city, which he had ruled with a stern and absolute sway,
powerful institutions, noble works, and a name which two
centuries afterwards his descendants bore with pride as a
title of nobility."
A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers Etat,
volume 1, chapter 2.
See, also,
STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14th CENTURY.
{1171}
FRANCE: A. D. 1358.
The insurrection of the Jacquerie.
"The miseries of France weighed more and more heavily on the
peasantry; and none regarded them. They stood apart from the
cities, knowing little of them; the nobles despised them and
robbed them of their substance or their labour. ... At last
the peasantry (May, 1358), weary of their woes, rose up to
work their own revenge and ruin. They began in the Beauvais
country and there fell on the nobles, attacking and destroying
castles, and slaying their inmates: it was the old unvarying
story. They made themselves a kind of king, a man of Clermont
in the Beauvoisin, named William Callet. Froissart imagines
that the name 'Jacques Bonhomme' meant a particular person, a
leader in these risings. Froissart however had no accurate
knowledge of the peasant and his ways. Jacques Bonhomme was
the common nickname, the 'Giles' or 'Hodge' of France, the
name of the peasant generally; and from it such risings as
this of 1358 came to be called the 'Jacquerie,' or the
disturbances of the 'Jacques.' The nobles were soon out
against them, and the whole land was full of anarchy. Princes
and nobles, angry peasants with their 'iron shod sticks and
knives,' free-lances, English bands of pillagers, all made up
a scene of utter confusion: 'cultivation ceased, commerce
ceased, security was at an end.' The burghers of Paris and
Meaux sent a force to help the peasants, who were besieging
the fortress at Meaux, held by the nobles; these were suddenly
attacked and routed by the Captal de Buch and the Count de Foix,
'then on their return from Prussia.' The King of Navarre also
fell on them, took by stratagem their leader Callet, tortured
and hanged him. In six weeks the fire was quenched in blood."
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
chapter 2, section 3.
"Froissard relates the horrible details of the Jacquerie with
the same placid interest which characterises his descriptions
of battles, tournaments, and the pageantry of chivalry. The
charm and brilliancy of his narrative have long popularised
his injustice and his errors, which are self-apparent when
compared with the authors and chroniclers of his time. ... The
chronicles contemporary of the Jacquerie confine themselves to
a few words on the subject, although, with the exception of
the Continuator of Nangis, they were all hostile to the cause
of the peasants. The private and local documents on the
subject say very little more. The Continuator of Nangis has
drawn his information from various sources. He takes care to
state that he has witnessed almost all he relates. After
describing the sufferings of the peasants, he adds that the
laws of justice authorised them to rise in revolt against the
nobles of France. His respected testimony reduces the
insurrection to comparatively small proportions. The hundred
thousand Jacques of Froissard are reduced to something like
five or six thousand men, a number much more probable when it
is considered that the insurrection remained a purely local
one, and that, in consequence of the ravages we have
mentioned, the whole open country had lost about two-thirds of
its inhabitants. He states very clearly that the peasants
killed indiscriminately, and without pity, men and children,
but he does not say anything of those details of atrocity
related by Froissard. He only alludes once to a report of some
outrages offered to some noble ladies; he speaks of it as a
vague rumour. He describes the insurgents, after the first
explosion of their vindictive fury, as pausing--amazed at
their own boldness, and terrified at their own crimes, and the
nobles, recovering from their terror, taking immediate
advantage of this sudden torpor and paralysis--assembling and
slaughtering all, innocent and guilty, burning houses and
villages. If we turn to other writers contemporary with the
Jacquerie, we find that Louvet, author of the 'History of the
District of Beauvais,' does not say much on the subject, and
evinces also a sympathy for the peasants: the paucity of his
remarks on a subject represented by Froissard as a gigantic,
bloody tragedy, raises legitimate doubts as to the veracity of
the latter. There is another authority on the events of that
period, which may be considered as more weighty, in
consequence of its ecclesiastical character; it is the
'cartulaire,' or journal of the Abbot of Beauvais. ... There
is no trace in it of the horror and indescribable terror ...
[the rising] must have inspired if the peasants had committed
the atrocities attributed to them by the feudal historian,
Froissard. On the contrary, the vengeance of the peasants
falls into the shade, as it were, in contrast with the
merciless reaction of the nobles, along with the sanguinary
oppression of the English. The writer of the 'Abbey of
Beauvais,' and the anonymous monk, 'Continuator of Nangis,'
concur with each other in their account of the Jacquerie.
Their judgments are similar, and they manifest the same
moderation. Their opinions, moreover, are confirmed by a
higher authority, a testimony that must be considered as
indisputable, namely, the letters of amnesty of the Regent of
France, which are all preserved; they bear the date of 10th
August 1358, and refer to all the acts committed on the
occasion of the Jacquerie. In these he proves himself more
severe upon the reaction of the nobles than on the revolt of
the peasants. ... There is not the slightest allusion to the
monstrosities related by Froissard, which the Regent could not
have failed to stigmatise, as he is well known for having
entertained an unscrupulous hatred to any popular movement, or
any claims of the people. The manner, on the contrary, in
which the Jacquerie are represented in this official document,
is full of signification; it represents the men of the open
country assembling spontaneously in various localities, in
order to deliberate on the means of resisting the English, and
suddenly, as with a mutual agreement, turning fiercely on the
nobles, who were the real cause of their misery, and of the
disgrace of France, on the days of Crecy and Poitiers. ... It
has also been forgotten that many citizens took an active part
in the Jacquerie. The great chronicles of France state that
the majority were peasants, labouring people, but that there
were also among them citizens, and even gentlemen, who, no
doubt, were impelled by personal hatred and vengeance. Many
rich men joined the peasants, and became their leaders. The
bourgeoisie, in its struggles with royalty, could not refuse
to take advantage of such a diversion; and Beauvais, Senlis,
Amiens, Paris, and Meaux accepted the Jacquerie. Moreover,
almost all the poorer classes of the cities sympathised with
the revolted peasants.
{1172}
The Jacquerie broke out on the 21st of May 1358, and not in
November 1357, as erroneously stated by Froissard, in the
districts around Beauvais and Clermont-sur-Oise. The peasants,
merely armed with pikes, sticks, fragments of their ploughs,
rushed on their masters, murdered their families, and burned
down their castles. The country comprised between Beauvais and
Melun was the principal scene of this war of extermination.
... The Jacquerie had commenced on the 21st of May. On the 9th
of June ... it was already terminated. It was, therefore, in
reality, an insurrection of less than three weeks' duration.
The reprisals of the nobles had already commenced on the 9th
of June, and continued through the whole of July, and the
greater part of August. Froissard states that the Jacquerie
lasted over six weeks, thus comprising in his reckoning three
weeks of the ferocious vengeance of the nobles, and casting on
Jacques Bonhomme the responsibility of the massacres of which
he had been the victim, as well as those he had committed in
his furious despair."
Prof. De Vericour,
The Jacquerie
(Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 1).
ALSO IN:
Sir J. Froissart,
Chronicles
(Johnes' translation),
book 1, chapter 181.
FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.
English conquests recovered.
The Peace of Bretigny brought little peace to France or little
diminution of the troubles of the kingdom. In some respects
there was a change for the worse introduced. The armies which
had ravaged the country dissolved into plundering bands which
afflicted it even more. Great numbers of mercenaries from both
sides were set free, who gathered into Free Companies, as they
were called, under leaders of fit recklessness and valor, and
swarmed over the land, warring on all prosperity and all the
peaceful industries of the time, seeking booty wherever it
might be found.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
Civil war, too, was kept alive by the intrigues and
conspiracies of the Navarrese king, Charles the Bad; and war
in Brittany, over a disputed succession to the dukedom, was
actually stipulated for, by French and English, in their
treaty of general peace. But when the chivalric but hapless
King John died, in 1364, the new king, Charles V., who had
been regent during his captivity, developed an unexpected
capacity for government. He brought to the front the famous
Breton warrior Du Guesclin-rough, ignorant, unchivalric--but a
fighter of the first order in his hard-fighting day. He
contrived with adroitness to rid France, mostly, of the Free
Companies, by sending them, with Du Guesclin at their head,
into Spain, where they drove Peter the Cruel from the throne
of Castile, and fought the English, who undertook, wickedly
and foolishly, to sustain him. The Black Prince won a great
battle, at Najara or Navarette (A. D. 1367), took Du Guesclin
prisoner and restored the cruel Pedro to his throne. But it
was a victory fatal to English interests in France. Half the
army of the English prince perished of a pestilent fever
before he led it back to Aquitaine, and he himself was marked
for early death by the same malady. He had been made duke of
Aquitaine, or Guienne, and held the government of the country.
The war in Spain proved expensive; he taxed his Gascon and
Aquitanian subjects heavily. He was ill, irritable, and
treated them harshly. Discontent became widely spread, and the
king of France subtly stirred it up until he felt prepared to
make use of it in actual war. At last, in 1368, he challenged
a rupture of the Peace of Bretigny by summoning King Edward,
as his vassal, to answer complaints from Aquitaine. In April
of the next year he formally declared war and opened
hostilities the same day. His cunning policy was not to fight,
but to waste and wear the enemy out. Its wisdom was well-proved
by the result. Day by day the English lost ground; the footing
they had gained in France was found to be everywhere insecure.
The dying Black Prince achieved one hideous triumph at
Limoges, where he fouled his brilliant fame by a monstrous
massacre; and thence he was carried home to end his days in
England. In 1376 he died, and one year later his father, King
Edward, followed him to the grave, and a child of eleven
(Richard II.) came to the English throne. But the same
calamity befell France in 1380, when Charles the Wise died,
leaving an heir to the throne only twelve years of age. In
both kingdoms the minority of the sovereign gave rise to
factious intrigues and distracting feuds. The war went on at
intervals, with frequent truces and armistices, and with
little result beyond the animosities which it kept alive. But
the English possessions, by this time, had been reduced to
Calais and Guines, with some small parts of Aquitaine
adjoining the cities of Bordeaux and Bayonne. And thus, it may
be said, the situation was prolonged through a generation,
until Henry V. of England resumed afresh the undertaking of
Edward III.
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 22.
ALSO IN:
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 4.
T. Wright,
History of France,
book 2, chapter 6.
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 9.
D. F. Jamison,
Life and Times of Du Guesclin.
Froissart, Chronicles
(Johnes' translation),
book 1.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.
FRANCE: A. D. 1364.
Accession of King Charles V.
FRANCE: A. D. 1378.
Acquisitions in the Rhone valley legal conferred by the
Emperor.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
FRANCE: A. D. 1380.
Accession of King Charles VI.
FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.
The reign of the Dukes.
The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.
"Charles VI. had arrived at the age of eleven years and some
months when his father died [A. D. 1380]. His three paternal
uncles, the Dukes of Anjou, Berry, and Burgundy, and his
maternal uncle, the Duke of Bourbon, disputed among themselves
concerning his guardianship and the regency. They agreed to
emancipate the young King immediately after his coronation,
which was to take place during the year, and the regency was
to remain until that period in the hands of the eldest, the
Duke of Anjou." But the Duke of Anjou was soon afterwards
lured into Italy by the fatal gift of a claim to the crown of
Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.], and perished in striving
to realize it. The surviving uncles misgoverned the country
between them until 1389, when the young king was persuaded to
throw off their yoke. The nation rejoiced for three years in
the experience and the prospect of administrative reforms; but
suddenly, in July, 1392, the young king became demented, and
"then commenced the third and fatal epoch of that disastrous
reign. The faction of the dukes again seized power," but only
to waste and afflict the kingdom by dissensions among
themselves.
{1173}
The number of the rival dukes was now increased by the
addition of the Duke of Orleans, brother of the king, who
showed himself as ruthless and rapacious as any. "Charles was
still considered to be reigning; each one sought in turn to
get possession of him, and each one watched his lucid moments
in order to stand well in power. His flashes of reason were
still more melancholy than his fits of delirium. Incapable of
attending to his affairs, or of having a will of his own,
always subservient to the dominant party, he appeared to
employ his few glimmerings of reason only in sanctioning the
most tyrannical acts and the most odious abuses. It was in
this manner that the kingdom of France was governed during
twenty-eight years." In 1404, the Duke of Burgundy, Philip
the Bold, having died, the Duke of Orleans acquired supreme
authority and exercised it most oppressively. But the new Duke
of Burgundy, John the Fearless, made his appearance on the
scene ere long, arriving from his county of Flanders with an
army and threatening civil war. Terms of peace, however, were
arranged between the two dukes and an apparent reconciliation
took place. On the very next day the Duke of Orleans was
assassinated (A. D. 1407), and the Duke of Burgundy openly
proclaimed his instigation of the deed. Out of that
treacherous murder sprang a war of factions so deadly that
France was delivered by it to foreign conquest, and destroyed,
we may say, for the time being, as a nation. The elder of the
young princes of Orleans, sons of the murdered duke, had
married a daughter of Count Bernard of Armagnac, and Count
Bernard became the leader of the party which supported them
and sought to avenge them, as against the Duke of Burgundy and
his party. Hence the former acquired the name of Armagnacs;
the latter were called Burgundians. Armagnac led an army of
Gascons [A. D. 1410] and threatened Paris, "where John the
Fearless caressed the vilest populace. Burgundy relied on the
name of the king, whom he held in his power, and armed in the
capital a corps of one hundred young butchers or
horse-knackers, who, from John Caboche, their chief, took the
name of Cabochiens. A frightful war, interrupted by truces
violated on both sides, commenced between the party of
Armagnac and that of Burgundy. Both sides appealed to the
English, and sold France to them. The Armagnacs pillaged and
ravaged the environs of Paris with unheard of cruelties, while
the Cabochiens caused the capital they defended to tremble.
The States-General, convoked for the first time for thirty
years, were dumb--without courage and without strength. The
Parliament was silent, the university made itself the organ of
the populace, and the butchers made the laws. They pillaged,
imprisoned and slaughtered with impunity, according to their
savage fury, and found judges to condemn their victims. ...
The reaction broke out at last. Tired of so many atrocities,
the bourgeoisie took up arms, and shook off the yoke of the
horse-knackers. The Dauphin was delivered by them. He mounted
on horseback, and, at the head of the militia, went to the
Hôtel de Ville, from which place he drove out Caboche and his
brigands. The counter revolution was established. Burgundy
departed, and the power passed to the Armagnacs. The princes
re-entered Paris, and King Charles took up the oriflamme (the
royal standard of France), to make war against John the
Fearless, whose instrument he had been a short time before.
His army was victorious. Burgundy submitted, and the treaty of
Arras [A. D. 1415] suspended the war, but not the executions and
the ravages. Henry V., King of England, judged this a
propitious moment to descend upon France, which had not a
vessel to oppose the invaders."
E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, pages 266-279.
ALSO IN:
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 1-140.
T. Wright,
History of France,
book 2, chapters 8-9.
FRANCE: A. D. 1383.
Pope Urban's Crusade against the Schismatics.
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.
FRANCE: A. D. 1396.
The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the king.
See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.
FRANCE: A. D. 1415.
The Hundred Years War renewed by Henry V. of England.
"When Henry V. resolved to recover what he claimed as the
inheritance of his predecessors, he had to begin, it may be
said, the work of conquest over again. Allies, however, he
had, whose assistance he was to find very useful. The dynasty
of De Montfort had been established in possession of the
dukedom of Britanny in a great measure by English help, and
though the relations between the two countries had not been
invariably friendly since that time, the sense of this
obligation, and, still more powerfully, a jealous fear of the
French king, inclined Britanny to the English alliance. The
Dukes of Burgundy, though they had no such motives of
gratitude towards England, felt a far stronger hostility
towards France. The feud between the rival factions which went
by the names of Burgundians and Armagnacs had now been raging
for several years; and though the attitude of the Burgundians
varied--at the great struggle of Agincourt they were allies,
though lukewarm and even doubtful allies, of the French--they
ultimately ranked themselves decidedly on Henry's side. In
1414, then, Henry formally demanded, as the heir of Isabella,
mother of his great-grandfather Edward, the crown of France.
This claim the French princes wholly refused to consider.
Henry then moderated his demands so far, at least, as to allow
Charles to remain in nominal possession of his kingdom; but
... France was to cede to England, no longer as a feudal
superior making a grant to a vassal, but in full sovereignty,
the provinces of Normandy, Maine, and Anjou, together with all
that was comprised in the ancient duchy of Aquitaine. Half,
too, of Provence was claimed, and the arrears of the ransom of
King John, amounting to 1,200,000 crowns, were also to be
paid. Finally, the French king was to give his youngest
daughter, Katharine, in marriage to Henry, with a portion of
2,000,000 crowns. The French ministers offered, in answer, to
yield the duchy of Aquitaine, comprising the provinces of
Anjou, Gascony, Guienne, Poitou, and to give the hand of the
princess Katharine with a dowry of 600,000 crowns.
"Negotiations went on through several months, with small
chance of success, while Henry prepared for war. His
preparations were completed in the summer of 1415, and on the
11th of August in that year he set sail from Southampton, with
an army of 6,000 men-at-arms and 24,000 archers, very
completely equipped, and accompanied with cannon and other
engines of war.
{1174}
Landing in the estuary of the Seine, the invaders first
captured the important Norman seaport of Harfleur, after a
siege of a month, and expelled the inhabitants from the town.
It was an important acquisition; but it had cost the English
heavily. They were ill-supplied with food; they had suffered
from much rain; 2,000 had died of an epidemic of dysentery.
The army was in no condition for a forward movement. "The
safest course would now have been to return at once; and this
seems to have been pressed upon the king by the majority of
his counsellors. But this prudent advice did not approve
itself to Henry's adventurous temper. ... He determined ... to
make what may be called a military parade to Calais. This
involved a march of not less than 150 miles through a hostile
country, a dangerous, and, but that one who cherishes such
designs as Henry's must make a reputation for daring, a
useless operation; but the king's determined will overcame all
opposition." Leaving a strong garrison at Harfleur, Henry set
out upon his march. Arrived at the Somme, his further progress
was disputed, and he was forced to make a long detour before
he could effect a crossing of the river. On the 24th of
October, he encountered the French army, strongly posted at
the village of Azincour or Agincourt, barring the road to
Calais; and there, on the morning of the 25th, after a night
of drenching rain, the great battle, which shines with so
dazzling a glory in English history, was fought. There seems
to be no doubt that the English were greatly outnumbered by
the French--according to Monstrelet they were but one to six;
but the masses on the French side were unskilfully handled and
no advantage was got from them. The deadly shafts of the
terrible English archers built such a rampart of corpses in
their front that it actually sheltered them from the charge of
the French cavalry. "Everywhere the French were routed, slain,
or taken. The victory of the English was complete. ... The
French loss was enormous. Monstrelet gives a long list of the
chief princes and nobles who fell on that fatal field. ... We
are disposed to trust his estimate, which, including princes,
knights and men-at-arms of every degree, he puts at 10,000.
... Only 1,600 are said to have been 'of low degree.' ... The
number of knights and gentlemen taken prisoners was 1,500.
Among them were Charles, Duke of Orleans, and the Duke of
Bourbon, both princes of the blood-royal. ... Brilliant as was
the victory which Henry had won at Agincourt, it had, it may
be said, no immediate results. ... The army resumed its
interrupted march to Calais, which was about forty miles
distant. At Calais a council of war was held, and the
resolution to return to England unanimously taken. A few days
were allowed for refreshment, and about the middle of November
the army embarked."
A. J. Church,
Henry the Fifth,
chapters 6-10.
ALSO IN:
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 140-149.
J. E. Tyler,
Henry of Monmouth,
chapters 19-23.
G M. Towle,
History of Henry V.,
chapters 7-8.
Lord Brougham,
History of England and France
under the House of Lancaster.
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History:
second series, chapters 24-26.
FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.
Massacre of Armagnacs.
The murder of the Duke of Burgundy.
"The captivity of so many princes of the blood as had been
taken prisoner at Agincourt might have seemed likely at least
to remove some of the elements of discord; but it so happened
that the captives were the most moderate and least ambitious
men. The gentle, poetical Duke of Orleans, the good Duke of
Bourbon, and the patriotic and gallant Arthur de Richemont,
had been taken, while the savage Duke of Burgundy and the
violent Gascon Count of Armagnac, Constable of France,
remained at the head of their hostile factions. ... The Count
d'Armagnac now reigned supreme; no prince of the blood came to
the councils, and the king and dauphin were absolutely in his
hands. ... The Duke of Burgundy was, however, advancing with
his forces, and the Parisians were always far more inclined to
him than to the other party. ... For a whole day's ride round
the environs of the city, every farmhouse had been sacked or
burnt. Indeed, it was said in Paris a man had only to be
called a Burgundian, or anywhere else in the Isle of France an
Armagnac, to be instantly put to death. All the soldiers who
had been posted to guard Normandy and Picardy against the
English were recalled to defend Paris against the Duke of
Burgundy; and Henry V. could have found no more favourable
moment for a second expedition." The English king took
advantage of his opportunity and landed in Normandy August 1,
1417, finding nobody to oppose him in the field. The factions
were employed too busily in cutting each other's throats,--
especially after the Burgundians had regained possession of
Paris, which they did in the following spring. Thereupon the
Parisian mob rose and ferociously massacred all the partisans
of Armagnac, while the Burgundians looked and approved. "The
prison was forced; Armagnac himself was dragged out and slain
in the court. ... The court of each prison became a
slaughter-house; the prisoners were called down one by one,
and there murdered, till the assassins were up to their ankles
in blood. The women were as savage as the men, and dragged the
corpses about the streets in derision. The prison slaughter
had but given a passion for further carnage; and the murderers
broke open the houses in search of Armagnacs, killing not only
men, but women, children, and even new-born babes, to whom in
their diabolical frenzy they refused baptism, as being little
Armagnacs. The massacre lasted from four o'clock on Sunday
morning to ten o'clock on Monday. Some say that 3,000
perished, others 1,600, and the Duke of Burgundy's servants
reported the numbers as only 400." Meantime Henry V. was
besieging Rouen, and starving Paris by cutting off the
supplies for which it depended on the Seine. In August there
was another rising of the Parisian mob and another massacre.
In January, 1419, Rouen surrendered, and attempts at peace
followed, both parties making a truce with the English
invader. The imperious demands of King Henry finally impelled
the two French factions to draw together and to make a common
cause of the deliverance of the kingdom. At least that was the
profession with which the Dauphin and the Duke of Burgundy
met, in July, and went through the forms of a reconciliation.
Perhaps there were treacherous intentions on both sides. On
one side the treachery was consummated a month later
(September 10, 1419), when, a second meeting between Duke John
the Fearless and the Dauphin taking place at the Bridge of
Montereau, the Duke was basely assassinated in the Dauphin's
presence.
{1175}
This murder, by which the Armagnacs, who controlled the young
Dauphin, hoped to break their rivals down, only kindled afresh
the passions which were destroying France and delivering it an
easy prey to foreign conquest.
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
second series, chapters 28-29.
ALSO IN:
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 150-211.
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 9, chapter 2.
FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.
Burgundy's revenge.
Henry the Fifth's triumph.
Two kings in Paris.
The Treaty of Troyes.
Death of Henry.
"Whilst civil war was ... penetrating to the very core of the
kingship, foreign war was making its way again into the
kingdom. Henry V., after the battle of Agincourt, had returned
to London, and had left his army to repose and reorganize
after its sufferings and its losses. It was not until eighteen
months afterwards, on the 1st of August, 1417, that he landed
at Touques, not far from Honfleur, with fresh troops, and
resumed his campaign in France. Between 1417 and 1419 he
successively laid siege to nearly all the towns of importance
in Normandy, to Caen, Bayeux, Falaise, Evreux, Coutances,
Laigle, St. Lô, Cherbourg, &c., &c. Some he occupied after a
short resistance, others were sold to him by their governors;
but when, in the month of July, 1418, he undertook the siege
of Rouen, he encountered there a long and serious struggle.
Rouen had at that time, it is said, a population of 150,000
souls, which was animated by ardent patriotism. The Rouennese,
on the approach of the English, had repaired their gates,
their ramparts, and their moats; had demanded reinforcements
from the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy; and had
ordered every person incapable of bearing arms or procuring
provisions for ten months to leave the city. Twelve thousand
old men, women and children were thus expelled, and died
either round the place or whilst roving in misery over the
neighbouring country. ... Fifteen thousand men of
city-militia, 4,000 regular soldiers, 300 spearmen and as many
archers from Paris, and it is not quite known how many
men-at-arms sent by the Duke of Burgundy, defended Rouen for
more than five months amidst all the usual sufferings of
strictly-besieged cities." On the 13th of January, 1419, the
town was surrendered. "It was 215 years since Philip Augustus
had won Rouen by conquest from John Lackland, King of
England." After this great success there were truces brought
about between all parties, and much negotiation, which came to
nothing--except the treacherous murder of the Duke of
Burgundy, as related above. Then the situation changed. The
son and successor of the murdered duke, afterwards known as
Philip the Good, took sides, at once, with the English king
and committed himself to a war of revenge, indifferent to the
fate of France. "On the 17th of October [1419] was opened at
Arras a congress between the plenipotentiaries of England and
those of Burgundy. On the 20th of November a special truce was
granted to the Parisians, whilst Henry V., in concert with
Duke Philip of Burgundy, was prosecuting the war against the
dauphin. On the 2d of December the bases were laid of an
agreement between the English and the Burgundians. The
preliminaries of the treaty, which was drawn up in accordance
with these bases, were signed on the 9th of April, 1420, by
King Charles VI. [now controlled by the Burgundians], and on
the 20th communicated at Paris by the chancellor of France to
the parliament." On the 20th of May following, the treaty,
definitive and complete, was signed by Henry V. and
promulgated at Troyes. By this treaty of Troyes, Princess
Catherine, daughter of the King of France, was given in
marriage to King Henry; Charles VI. was guaranteed his
possession of the French crown while he lived; on his death,
"the crown and kingdom of France, with all their rights and
appurtenances," were solemnly conveyed to Henry V. of England
and his heirs, forever. "The revulsion against the treaty of
Troyes was real and serious, even in the very heart of the
party attached to the Duke of Burgundy. He was obliged to lay
upon several of his servants formal injunctions to swear to
this peace, which seemed to them treason. ... In the duchy of
Burgundy the majority of the towns refused to take the oath to
the King of England. The most decisive and the most helpful
proof of this awakening of national feeling was the ease
experienced by the dauphin, who was one day to be Charles
VII., in maintaining the war which, after the treaty of
Troyes, was, in his father's and his mother's name, made upon
him by the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy. This war
lasted more than three years. Several towns, amongst others,
Melun, Crotoy, Meaux, and St. Riquier, offered an obstinate
resistance to the attacks of the English and Burgundians. ...
It was in Perche, Anjou, Maine, on the banks of the Loire, and
in Southern France, that the dauphin found most of his
enterprising and devoted partisans. The sojourn made by Henry
V. at Paris, in December, 1420, with his wife, Queen
Catherine, King Charles VI., Queen Isabel, and the Duke of
Burgundy, was not, in spite of galas and acclamations, a
substantial and durable success for him. ... Towards the end
of August, 1422, Henry V. fell ill; and, too stout-hearted to
delude himself as to his condition, he ... had himself removed
to Vincennes, called his councillors about him, and gave them
his last royal instructions. ... He expired on the 31st of
August, 1422, at the age of thirty-four."
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 23.
At Paris, "the two sovereigns [Henry V. and Charles VI.] kept
distinct courts. That of Henry was by far the most splendidly
equipped and numerously attended of the two. He was the rising
sun, and all men looked to him. All offices of trust and
profit were at his disposal, and the nobles and gentlemen of
France flocked into his ante-chambers."
A. J. Church,
Henry the Fifth,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
volume 1, book 1, chapters 171-264.
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 9, chapters 2-3.
FRANCE: A. D. 1422.
Accession of King Charles VII.
{1176}
FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
The Mission of the Maid.
"France divided--two kings, two regencies, two armies, two
governments, two nations, two nobilities, two systems of
justice--met face to face: father, son, mother, uncles,
nephews, citizens, and strangers, fought for the right, the
soil, the throne, the cities, the spoil and the blood of the
nation. The King of England died at Vincennes [August 31,
1422], and was shortly followed [October 22] by Charles VI.,
father of the twelve children of Isabel, leaving the kingdom
to the stranger and to ruin. The Duke of Bedford insolently
took possession of the Regency in the name of England, pursued
the handful of nobles who wished to remain French with the
dauphin, defeated them at the battle of Verneuil [August
17,1424], and exiled the queen, who had become a burden to the
government after having been an instrument of usurpation. He
then concentrated the armies of England, France and Burgundy
round Orleans, which was defended by some thousands of the
partisans of the dauphin, and which comprised almost all that
remained of the kingdom of France. The land was everywhere
ravaged by the passing and repassing of these bands--sometimes
friends, sometimes enemies--driving each other on, wave after
wave, like the billows of the Atlantic; ravaging crops,
burning towns, dispersing, robbing, and ill-treating the
population. In this disorganization of the country, the young
dauphin, sometimes awakened by the complaints of his people,
at others absorbed in the pleasures natural to his age, was
making love to Agnes Sorel in the castle of Loches. ... Such
was the state of the nation when Providence showed it a savior
in a child." The child was Jeanne D'Arc, or Joan of Arc,
better known in history as the Maid of Orleans,--daughter of a
peasant who tilled his own few acres at the village of
Domrémy, in Upper Lorraine. Of the visions of the pious young
maiden--of the voices she heard--of the conviction which came
upon her that she was called by God to deliver her
country--and of the enthusiasm of faith with which she went
about her mission until all people bent to her as the
messenger and minister of God--the story is a familiar one to
all. In April, 1429, Joan was sent by the king, from Blois,
with 10,000 or 12,000 men, to the succour of Orleans, where
Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans, was in command. She reformed
the army, purged it of all vile followers, and raised its
confidence to that frenzied pitch which nothing can resist. On
the 8th of May the English abandoned the siege and Orleans was
saved. "Joan wasted no time in vain triumphs. She brought back
the victorious army to the dauphin, to assist him in
reconquering city after city of his kingdom. The dauphin and
the queens received her as the messenger of God, who had found
and recovered the lost keys of the kingdom. 'I have only
another year,' she remarked, with a sad presentiment, which
seemed to indicate that her victory led to the scaffold; 'I
must therefore set to work at once.' She begged the dauphin to
go and be crowned at Rheims, although that city and the
intermediate provinces were still in the power of the
Burgundians, Flemings, and English." Counsellors and generals
opposed; but the sublime faith of the Maid overcame all
opposition and all difficulties. The king's route to Rheims
was rapidly cleared of his enemies. At Patay (June 18, 1429)
the English suffered a heavy defeat and their famous soldier,
Lord Talbot, was taken prisoner. Troyes, Chalons and Rheims
opened their gates. "The Duke of Bedford, the regent, remained
trembling in Paris. 'All our misfortunes,' he wrote to the
Cardinal of Winchester, 'are owing to a young witch, who, by
her sorcery, has restored the courage of the French.' ... The
king was crowned [July 17, 1429], and Joan's mission was
accomplished. 'Noble king,' said she, embracing his knees in
the Cathedral after the coronation, 'now is accomplished the
will of God, which commanded me to bring you to this city of
Rheims to receive your holy unction--now that you at last are
king, and that the kingdom of France is yours.' ... From that
moment a great depression, and a fatal hesitation seem to have
come over her. The king, the people, and the army, to whom she
had given victory, wished her to remain always their
prophetess, their guide, and their enduring miracle. But she
was now only a weak woman, lost amid courts and camps, and she
felt her weakness beneath her armor. Her heart alone remained
courageous, but had ceased to be inspired." She urged an
attack on Paris (Sept. 8, 1429) and experienced her first
failure, being grievously wounded in the assault. The
following spring, Compiègne being besieged, she entered the
town to take part in the defence. The same evening (May 24,
1430) she led a sortie which was repulsed, and she was taken
prisoner in the retreat. Some think she was betrayed by the
commandant of the town, who ordered the raising of the
drawbridge just as her horse was being spurred upon it. Once
in the hands of her enemies, the doom of the unfortunate Maid
was sealed. Sir Lionel de Ligny, her captor, gave his prisoner

to the count of Luxembourg, who yielded her to the Duke of
Burgundy, who surrendered her to the English, who delivered
her to the Inquisition, by which she was tried, condemned and
burned to death, at Rouen, as a witch (May 30, 1431). "It was
a complex crime, in which each party got rid of
responsibility, but in which the accusation rests with Paris
[the University of Paris was foremost among the pursuers of
the wonderful Maid], the cowardice with Luxembourg, the
sentence with the Inquisition, the blame and punishment with
England, and the disgrace and ingratitude with France. This
bartering about Joan by her enemies, of whom the fiercest were
her countrymen, had lasted six months. ... During these six
months, the influence of this goddess of war upon the troops
of Charles VII.--her spirit, which still guided the camp and
council of the king--the patriotic, though superstitious,
veneration of the people, which her captivity only
doubled,--and, lastly, the absence of the Duke of Burgundy,
... all these causes had brought reverse after reverse upon
the English, and a series of successes to Charles VII. Joan,
although absent, triumphed everywhere."
A. de Lamartine,
Memoirs of Celebrated Characters: Joan of Arc.
"It seems natural to ask what steps the King of France had
taken ... to avert her doom. If ever there had been a
sovereign indebted to a subject, that sovereign was Charles
VII., that subject Joan of Arc. ... Yet, no sooner was she
captive than she seems forgotten. We hear nothing of any
attempt at rescue, of any proposal for ransom; neither the
most common protest against her trial, nor the faintest threat
of reprisals; nay, not even after her death, one single
expression of regret! Charles continued to slumber in his
delicious retreats beyond the Loire, engrossed by dames of a
very different character from Joan's, and careless of the
heroine to whom his security in that indolence was due. Her
memory on the other hand was long endeared to the French
people, and long did they continue to cherish a romantic hope
that she might still survive.
{1177}
So strong was this feeling, that in the year 1436 advantage
was taken of it by a female imposter, who pretended to be Joan
of Arc escaped from her captivity. She fixed her abode at
Metz, and soon afterwards married a knight of good family, the
Sire des Armoises. Strange to say, it appears from a contemporary
chronicle, that Joan's two surviving brothers acknowledged
this woman as their sister. Stranger still, other records
prove that she made two visits to Orleans, one before and one
after her marriage, and on each occasion was hailed as the
heroine returned. ... The brothers of Joan of Arc might
possibly have hopes of profit by the fraud; but how the people
of Orleans, who had seen her so closely, who had fought side
by side with her in the siege, could be deceived as to the
person, we cannot understand, nor yet what motive they could
have in deceiving. The interest which Joan of Arc inspires at
the present day extends even to the house where she dwelt, and
to the family from which she sprung. Her father died of grief
at the tidings of her execution; her mother long survived it,
but fell into great distress. Twenty years afterwards we find
her in receipt of a pension from the city of Orleans; three
francs a month; 'to help her to live.' Joan's brothers and
their issue took, the name of Du Lis from the Lily of France,
which the King had assigned as their arms. ... It will be easy
to trace the true character of Joan. ... Nowhere do modern
annals display a character more pure--more generous--more
humble amidst fancied visions and undoubted victories--more
free from all taint of selfishness--more akin to the champions
and martyrs of old times. All this is no more than justice and
love of truth would require us to say. But when we find some
French historians, transported by an enthusiasm almost equal
to that of Joan herself, represent her us filling the part of
a general or statesman--as skilful in leading armies, or
directing councils--we must withhold our faith. Such skill,
indeed, from a country girl, without either education or
experience, would be, had she really possessed it, scarcely
less supernatural than the visions which she claimed. But the
facts are far otherwise. In affairs of state, Joan's voice was
never heard; in affairs of war, all her proposals will be
found to resolve themselves into two--either to rush headlong
upon the enemy, often in the very point where he was
strongest, or to offer frequent and public prayers to the
Almighty. We are not aware of any single instance in which her
military suggestions were not these, or nearly akin to these.
... Of Joan's person no authentic resemblance now remains. A
statue to her memory had been raised upon the bridge at
Orleans, at the sole charge ... of the matrons and maids of
that city: this probably preserved some degree of likeness,
but unfortunately perished in the religious wars of the
sixteenth century. There is no portrait extant; the two
earliest engravings are of 1606 and 1612, and they greatly
differ."
Lord Mahon,
Historical Essays,
pages 53-57.
"A few days before her death, when urged to resume her woman's
dress, she said: 'When I shall have accomplished that for
which I was sent from God, I will take the dress of a woman.'
Yet, in one sense her mission did end at Rheims. The faith of
the people still followed her, but her enemies--not the
English, but those in the heart of the court of Charles--began
to be too powerful for her. We may, indeed, conceive what a
hoard of envy and malice was gathering in the hearts of those
hardened politicians at seeing themselves superseded by a
peasant girl. They, accustomed to dark and tortuous ways,
could not comprehend or coalesce with the divine simplicity of
her designs and means. A successful intrigue was formed
against her. It was resolved to keep her still in the camp as
a name and a figure, but to take from her all power, all voice
in the direction of affairs. So accordingly it was done. ...
Her ways and habits during the year she was in arms are
attested by a multitude of witnesses. Dunois and the Duke of
Alençon bear testimony to what they term her extraordinary
talents for war, and to her perfect fearlessness in action;
but in all other things she was the most simple of creatures.
She wept when she first saw men slain in battle, to think that
they should have died without confession. She wept at the
abominable epithets which the English heaped upon her; but she
was without a trace of vindictiveness. 'Ah, Glacidas, Glacidas!'
she said to Sir William Glasdale at Orleans, 'you have called
me foul names; but I have pity upon your soul and the souls of
your men. Surrender to the King of Heaven!' And she was once
seen, resting the head of a wounded Englishman on her lap,
comforting and consoling him. In her diet she was abstemious
in the extreme, rarely eating until evening, and then for the
most part, only of bread and water sometimes mixed with wine.
In the field she slept in her armour, but when she came into a
city she always sought out some honourable matron, under whose
protection she placed herself; and there is wonderful evidence
of the atmosphere of purity which she diffused around her, her
very presence banishing from men's hearts all evil thoughts
and wishes. Her conversation, when it was not of the war, was
entirely of religion. She confessed often, and received
communion twice in the week. 'And it was her custom,' says
Dunois, 'at twilight every day, to retire to the church and
make the bells be rung for half an hour, and she gathered the
mendicant religious who followed the King's army, and made
them sing an antiphon of the Blessed Mother of God.' From
presumption, as from superstition, she was entirely free. When
women brought her crosses and chaplets to bless, she said:
'How can I bless them? Your own blessing would be as good as
mine.'"
J. O'Hagan,
Joan of Arc,
pages 61-66.
"What is to be thought of her? What is to be thought of the
poor shepherd girl from the hills and forests of Lorraine,
that--like the Hebrew shepherd boy from the hills and forests
of Judea--rose suddenly out of the quiet, out of the safety,
out of the religious inspiration, rooted in deep pastoral
solitudes, to a station in the van of armies, and to the more
perilous station at the right hand of kings? The Hebrew boy
inaugurated his patriotic mission by an act, by a victorious
act, such as no man could deny. But so did the girl of
Lorraine, if we read her story as it was read by those who saw
her nearest. Adverse armies bore witness to the boy as no
pretender; but so they did to the gentle girl. Judged by the
voices of all who saw them from a station of good-will, both
were found true and loyal to any promises involved in their
first acts. Enemies it was that made the difference between
their subsequent fortunes.
{1178}
The boy rose to a splendour, and a noonday prosperity, both
personal and public, that rang through the records of his
people, and became a by-word amongst his posterity for a
thousand years, until the sceptre was departing from Judah.
The poor, forsaken girl, on the contrary, drank not herself
from that cup of rest which she had secured for France. ...
This pure creature--pure from every suspicion of even a
visionary self-interest, even as she was pure in senses more
obvious--never once did this holy child, as regarded herself,
relax from her belief in the darkness that was travelling to
meet her. She might not prefigure the very manner of her
death; she saw not in vision, perhaps, the aerial altitude of
the fiery scaffold, the spectators without end on every road
pouring into Rouen as to a coronation, the surging smoke, the
volleying flames, the hostile faces all around, the pitying
eye that lurked but here and there, until nature and
imperishable truth broke loose from artificial
restraints;--these might not be apparent through the mists of
the hurrying future. But the voice that called her to death,
that she heard for ever."
T. De Quincey,
Joan of Arc (Collected Writings, volume 5).
A discussion of doubts that have been raised concerning the
death of Joan at the stake will be found in
Octave Delepierre's
Historical Difficulties and Contested Events,
chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 10.
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
book 2, chapters 57-105.
H. Parr,
Life and Death of Joan of Arc.
J. Tuckey,
Joan of Arc.
Mrs. A. E. Bray,
Joan of Arc.
FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.
The English expelled.
"In Joan of Arc the English certainly destroyed the cause of
their late reverses. But the impulse had been given, and the
crime of base vengeance could not stay it. Fortune declared
every where and in every way against them. In vain was Henry
VI. brought to Paris, crowned at Notre Dame, and made to
exercise all the functions of royalty in court and parliament.
The duke of Burgundy, disgusted with the English, became at
last reconciled to Charles; who spared no sacrifice to win the
support of so powerful a subject. The amplest possible amends
were made for the murder of the late duke. The towns beyond
the Somme were ceded to Burgundy, and the reigning duke [but
not his successors] was exempted from all homage towards the
king of France. Such was the famous treaty of Arras [September
21, 1435], which restored to Charles his throne, and deprived
the English of all hopes of retaining their conquests in the
kingdom. The crimes and misrule of the Orleans faction were
forgotten; popularity ebbed in favour of Charles. ... One of
the gates of Paris was betrayed by the citizens to the
constable and Dunois [April, 1436]. Willoughby, the governor,
was obliged to shut himself up in the Bastile with his
garrison, from whence they retired to Rouen. Charles VII.
entered his capital, after twenty years' exclusion from it, in
November, 1437. Thenceforward the war lost its serious
character. Charles was gradually established on his throne,
and the struggle between the two nations was feebly carried
on, broken merely by a few sieges and enterprises, mostly to
the disadvantage of the English. ... There had been frequent
endeavours and conferences towards a peace between the French
and English. The demands on either side proved irreconcilable.
A truce was however concluded, in 1444, which lasted four
years; it was sealed by the marriage of Henry VI. with
Margaret of Anjou, daughter of Réné, and granddaughter of
Louis, who had perished while leading an army to the conquest
of Naples. ... In 1449 the truce was allowed to expire. The
quarrels of York and Lancaster had commenced, and England was
unable to defend her foreign possessions. Normandy was
invaded. The gallant Talbot could not preserve Rouen with a
disaffected population, and Charles recovered without loss of
blood [1449] the second capital of his dominions. The only
blow struck by the English for the preservation of Normandy
was at Fourmigny near Bayeux. ... Normandy was for ever lost
to the English after this action or skirmish. The following
year Guyenne was invaded by the count de Dunois. He met with
no resistance. The great towns at that day had grown wealthy,
and their maxim was to avoid a siege at all hazards." Lord
Talbot was killed in an engagement at Castillon (1450), and
"with that hero expired the last hopes of his country in
regard to France. Guyenne was lost [A. D. 1453] as well as
Normandy, and Calais remained to England the only fruit of so
much blood spilt and so many victories achieved."
E. E. Crowe,
History of France,
volume 1, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 11.
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles (Johnes' translation),
book 2, chapter 109, book 3, chapter 65.
See, also,
AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.
FRANCE: A. D. 1438.
Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
Reforming decrees of the Council of Basel adopted for the
Gallican church.
After the rupture between the reforming Council of Basel and
Pope Eugenius IV. (see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448), Charles VII.
of France "determined to adopt in his own kingdom such of the
decrees of the Council as were for his advantage, seeing that
no opposition could be made by the Pope. Accordingly a Synod
was summoned at Bourges on May 1, 1438. The embassadors of
Pope and Council urged their respective causes. It was agreed
that the King should write to Pope and Council to stay their
hands in proceeding against one another; meanwhile, that the
reformation be not lost, some of the Basel decrees should be
maintained in France by royal authority. The results of the
synod's deliberation were laid before the King, and on July 7
were made binding as a pragmatic sanction on the French
Church. The Pragmatic Sanction enacted that General Councils
were to be held every ten years, and recognised the authority
of the Council of Basel. The Pope was no longer to reserve any
of the greater ecclesiastical appointments, but elections were
to be duly made by the rightful patrons. Grants to benefices
in expectancy, 'whence all agree that many evils arise,' were
to cease, as well as reservations. In all cathedral churches,
one prebend was to be given to a theologian who had studied
for ten years in a university, and who was to lecture or
preach at least once a week. Benefices were to be conferred in
future, one-third on graduates, two-thirds on deserving
clergy. Appeals to Rome, except for important causes, were
forbidden. The number of Cardinals was to be 24, each of the
age of 30 at least. Annates and first-fruits were no longer to
be paid to the Pope, but only the necessary legal fees on
institution. Regulations were made for greater reverence in
the conduct of Divine service; prayers were to be said by the
priest in an audible voice; mummeries in churches were
forbidden, and clerical concubinage was to be punished by
suspension for three months. Such were the chief reforms of
its own special grievances, which France wished to establish.
It was the first step in the assertion of the rights of
national Churches to arrange for themselves the details of
their own ecclesiastical organisation."
M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
book 3, chapter 9 (volume 2).
{1179}
FRANCE: A. D. 1447.
Origin of the claims of the house of Orleans to the duchy of
Milan.
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.
The reconstructed kingdom.
The new plant of Absolutism.
"At the expulsion of the English, France emerged from the
chaos with an altered character and new features of
government. The royal authority and supreme jurisdiction of
the parliament were universally recognised. Yet there was a
tendency towards insubordination left among the great
nobility, arising in part from the remains of old feudal
privileges, but still more from that lax administration which,
in the convulsive struggles of the war, had been suffered to
prevail. In the south were some considerable vassals, the
houses of Foix, Albret, and Armagnac, who, on account of their
distance from the seat of empire, had always maintained a very
independent conduct. The dukes of Britany and Burgundy were of
a more formidable character, and might rather be ranked among
foreign powers than privileged subjects. The princes, too, of
the royal blood, who, during the late reign, had learned to
partake or contend for the management, were ill-inclined
towards Charles VII., himself jealous, from old recollections
of their ascendancy. They saw that the constitution was
verging rapidly towards an absolute monarchy, from the
direction of which they would studiously be excluded. This
apprehension gave rise to several attempts at rebellion during
the reign of Charles VII., and to the war, commonly entitled,
for the Public Weal ('du bien public'), under Louis XI. Among
the pretenses alleged by the revolters in each of these, the
injuries of the people were not forgotten; but from the people
they received small support. Weary of civil dissension, and
anxious for a strong government to secure them from
depredation, the French had no inducement to intrust even
their real grievances to a few malcontent princes, whose
regard for the common good they had much reason to distrust.
Every circumstance favoured Charles VII. and his son in the
attainment of arbitrary power. The country was pillaged by
military ruffians. Some of these had been led by the dauphin
to a war in Germany, but the remainder still infested the high
roads and villages. Charles established his companies of
ordonnance, the basis of the French regular army, in order to
protect the country from such depredators. They consisted of
about nine thousand soldiers, all cavalry, of whom fifteen
hundred were heavy-armed; a force not very considerable, but
the first, except mere body-guards, which had been raised in
any part of Europe as a national standing army. These troops
were paid out of the produce of a permanent tax, called the
taille; an innovation still more important than the former.
But the present benefit cheating the people, now prone to
submissive habits, little or no opposition was made, except in
Guienne, the inhabitants of which had speedy reason to regret
the mild government of England, and vainly endeavoured to
return to its protection. It was not long before the new
despotism exhibited itself in its harshest character. Louis
XI., son of Charles VII., who during his father's reign, had
been connected with the discontented princes, came to the
throne greatly endowed with those virtues and vices which
conspire to the success of a king."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 2.
FRANCE: A. D. 1458-1461.
Renewed submission of Genoa to the King, and renewed revolt.
See GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.
FRANCE: A. D. 1461.
Accession of King Louis XI.
Contemporary portrait of him by Commines.
"Of all the princes that I ever knew, the wisest and most
dexterous to extricate himself out of any danger or difficulty
in time of adversity, was our master King Louis XI. He was the
humblest in his conversation and habit, and the most painful
and indefatigable to win over any man to his side that he
thought capable of doing him either mischief or service:
though he was often refused, he would never give over a man
that he wished to gain, but still pressed and continued his
insinuations, promising him largely, and presenting him with
such sums and honours as he knew would gratify his ambition;
and for such as he had discarded in time of peace and
prosperity, he paid dear (when he had occasion for them) to
recover them again; but when he had once reconciled them, he
retained no enmity towards them for what had passed, but
employed them freely for the future. He was naturally kind and
indulgent to persons of mean estate, and hostile to all great
men who had no need of him. Never prince was so conversable,
nor so inquisitive as he, for his desire was to know everybody
he could; and indeed he knew all persons of any authority or
worth in England, Spain, Portugal and Italy, in the
territories of the Dukes of Burgundy and Bretagne, and among
his own subjects; and by those qualities he preserved the
crown upon his head, which was in much danger by the enemies
he had created to himself upon his accession to the throne.
But above all, his great bounty and liberality did him the
greatest service: and yet, as he behaved himself wisely in
time of distress, so when he thought himself a little out of
danger, though it were but by a truce, he would disoblige the
servants and officers of his court by mean and petty ways,
which were little to his advantage; and as for peace, he could
hardly endure the thoughts of it. He spoke slightingly of most
people, and rather before their faces, than behind their
backs, unless he was afraid of them, and of that sort there
were a great many, for he was naturally somewhat timorous.
When he had done himself any prejudice by his talk, or was
apprehensive he should do so, and wished to make amends, he
would say to the person whom he had disobliged, 'I am sensible
my tongue has done me a great deal of mischief; but, on the
other hand, it has sometimes done me much good; however, it is
but reason I should make some reparation for the injury.' And
he never used this kind of apologies to any person, but he
granted some favour to the person to whom he made it, and it
was always of considerable amount. It is certainly a great
blessing from God upon any prince to have experienced
adversity as well as prosperity, good as well as evil, and
especially if the good outweighs the evil, as it did in the
king our master.
{1180}
I am of opinion that the troubles he was involved in, in his
youth, when he fled from his father, and resided six years
together with Philip Duke of Burgundy, were of great service
to him; for there he learned to be complaisant to such as he
had occasion to use, which was no slight advantage of
adversity. As soon as he found himself a powerful and crowned
king, his mind was wholly bent upon revenge; but he quickly
found the inconvenience of this, repented by degrees of his
indiscretion, and made sufficient reparation for his folly and
error, by regaining those he had injured, as shall be related
hereafter. Besides, I am very confident that if his education
had not been different from the usual education of such nobles
as I have seen in France, he could not so easily have worked
himself out of his troubles; for they are brought up to
nothing but to make themselves ridiculous, both in their
clothes and discourse; they have no knowledge of letters; no
wise man is suffered to come near them, to improve their
understandings; they have governors who manage their business,
but they do nothing themselves."--Such is the account of Louis
XI. which Philip de Commines gives in one of the early
chapters of his delightful Memoirs. In a later chapter he
tells naively of the king's suspicions and fears, and of what
he suffered, at the end of his life, as the penalty of his
cruel and crafty dealings with his subjects: "Some five or six
months before his death, he began to suspect everybody,
especially those who were most capable and deserving of the
administration of affairs. He was afraid of his son, and
caused him to be kept close, so that no man saw or discoursed
with him, but by his special command. At last he grew
suspicious of his daughter, and of his son-in-law the Duke of
Bourbon, and required an account of what persons came to speak
with them at Plessis, and broke up a council which the Duke of
Bourbon was holding there, by his order. ... Behold, then, if
he had caused many to live under him in continual fear and
apprehension, whether it was not returned to him again; for of
whom could he be secure when he was afraid of his son-in-law,
his daughter, and his own son? I speak this not only of him,
but of all other princes who desire to be feared, that
vengeance never falls on them till they grow old, and then, as
a just penance, they are afraid of everybody themselves; and
what grief must it have been to this poor King to be tormented
with such terrors and passions? He was still attended by his
physician, Master James Coctier, to whom in five months' time
he had given fifty-four thousand crowns in ready money,
besides the bishopric of Amiens for his nephew, and other
great offices and estates for himself and his friends; yet
this doctor used him very roughly indeed; one would not have
given such outrageous language to one's servants as he gave
the King, who stood in such awe of him, that he durst not
forbid him his presence. It is true he complained of his
impudence afterwards, but he durst not change him as he had
done all the rest of his servants; because he had told him
after a most audacious manner one day, 'I know well that some
time or other you will dismiss me from court, as you have done
the rest; but be sure (and he confirmed it with a great oath)
you shall not live eight days after it'; with which expression
the King was so terrified, that ever after he did nothing but
flatter and bribe him, which must needs have been a great
mortification to a prince who had been humbly obeyed all his
life by so many good and brave men. The King had ordered
several cruel prisons to be made; some were cages of iron, and
some of wood, but all were covered with iron plates both
within and without, with terrible locks, about eight feet wide
and seven high; the first contriver of them was the Bishop of
Verdun, who was immediately put in the first of them that was
made, where he continued fourteen years. Many bitter curses he
has had since for his invention, and some from me as I lay in
one of them eight months together in the minority of our
present King. He also ordered heavy and terrible fetters to be
made in Germany, and particularly a certain ring for the feet,
which was extremely hard to be opened, and fitted like an iron
collar, with a thick weighty chain, and a great globe of iron
at the end of it, most unreasonably heavy, which engines were
called the King's Nets. ... As in his time this barbarous
variety of prisons was invented, so before he died he himself
was in greater torment, and more terrible apprehension than
those whom he had imprisoned; which I look upon as a great
mercy towards him, and as it part of his purgatory; and I have
mentioned it here to show that there is no person, of what
station or dignity soever, but suffers some time or other,
either publicly or privately, especially if he has caused
other people to suffer. The King, towards the latter end of
his days, caused his castle of Plessis-les-Tours to be
encompassed with great bars of iron in the form of thick
grating, and at the four corners of the house four
sparrow-nests of iron, strong, massy, and thick, were built.
The grates were without the wall on the other side of the
ditch, and sank to the bottom. Several spikes of iron were
fastened into the wall, set as thick by one another as was
possible, and each furnished with three or four points. He
likewise placed ten bow-men in the ditches, to shoot at any
man that durst approach the castle before the opening of the
gates; and he ordered they should lie in the ditches, but
retire to the sparrow-nests upon occasion. He was sensible
enough that this fortification was too weak to keep out an
army, or any great body of men, but he had no fear of such an
attack; his great apprehension was, that some of the nobility
of his kingdom, having intelligence within, might attempt to
make themselves masters of the castle by night. ... Is it
possible then to keep a prince (with any regard to his
quality) in a closer prison than he kept himself? The cages
which were made for other people were about eight feet square;
and he (though so great a monarch) had but a small court of
the castle to walk in, and seldom made use of that, but
generally kept himself in the gallery, out of which he went
into the chambers on his way to mass, but never passed through
the court. ... I have not recorded these things merely to
represent our master as a suspicious and mistrustful prince;
but to show, that by the patience which he expressed in his
sufferings (like those which he inflicted on other people),
they may be looked upon, in my judgment, as a punishment which
our Lord inflicted upon him in this world, in order to deal
more mercifully with him in the next, as well in regard to
those things before-mentioned as to the distempers of his
body, which were great and painful, and much dreaded by him
before they came upon him; and, likewise, that those princes
who may be his successors, may learn by his example to be more
tender and indulgent to their subjects, and less severe in
their punishments than our master had been: although I will
not censure him, or say I ever saw a better prince; for though
he oppressed his subjects himself he would never see them
injured by anybody else."
Philip de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 1, chapter 10,
and book 6, chapter 11.
{1181}
FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.
The character and reign of Louis XI.
The League of the Public Weal.
"Except St. Louis, he [Louis XI.] was the first, as, indeed
(with the solitary exception of Louis Philippe), he is still
the only king of France whose mind was ever prepared for the
duties of that high station by any course of severe and
systematic study. Before he ascended the throne of his
ancestors he had profoundly meditated the great Italian
authors, and the institutions and maxims of the Italian
republics. From those lessons he had derived a low esteem of
his fellowmen, and especially of those among them upon whom
wealth, and rank, and power had descended as an hereditary
birthright. ... He clearly understood, and pursued with
inflexible steadfastness of purpose the elevation of his
country and the grandeur of his own royal house and lineage;
but he pursued them with a torpid imagination, a cold heart,
and a ruthless will. He regarded mankind as a physiologist
contemplates the living subjects of his science, or as a
chess-player surveys the pieces on his board. ... It has been
said of Louis XI., that the appearance of the men of the
Revolution of 1789 first made him intelligible. ... Louis was
the first of the terrible Ideologists of France--of that class
of men who, to enthrone an idolized idea, will offer whole
hecatombs of human sacrifices at the shrine of their idol. The
Idea of Louis was that of levelling all powers in the state,
in order that the administration of the affairs, the
possession of the wealth, and the enjoyment of the honours of
his kingdom might be grasped by himself and his successors as
their solitary and unrivalled dominion. ... Before his
accession to the throne, all the great fiefs into which France
had been divided under the earlier Capetian kings had, with
the exception of Bretagne, been either annexed to the royal
domain, or reduced to a state of dependence on the crown. But,
under the name of Apanages, these ancient divisions of the
kingdom into separate principalities had reappeared. The
territorial feudalism of the Middle Ages seemed to be reviving
in the persons of the younger branches of the royal house. The
Dukes of Burgundy had thus become the rulers of a state [see
BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467] which, under the government of more
politic princes, might readily, in fulfillment of their
desires, have attained the rank of an independent kingdom. The
Duke of Bretagne, still asserting the peculiar privileges of
his duchy, was rather an ally than a subject of the king of
France. Charles, Duke of Berri, the brother of Louis, aspired
to the possession of the same advantages. And these three
great territorial potentates, in alliance with the Duc de
Bourbon and the Comte de St. Pol, the brothers-in-law of Louis
and of his queen, united together to form that confederacy
against him to which they gave the very inappropriate title of
La Ligue du Bien Public. It was, however, a title which
recognized the growing strength of the Tiers Étât, and of that
public opinion to which the Tiers Étât at once gave utterance
and imparted authority. Selfish ambition was thus compelled to
assume the mask of patriotism. The princes veiled their
insatiable appetite for their own personal advantages under
the popular and plausible demands of administrative
reforms--of the reduction of imposts--of the government of
the people by their representatives--and, consequently, of the
convocation of the States-General. To these pretensions Louis
was unable to make any effectual resistance." An indecisive
but bloody battle was fought at Montlehery, near Paris (July
16, 1465), from which both armies retreated with every
appearance of defeat. The capital was besieged ineffectually
for some weeks by the League; then the king yielded, or seemed
to do so, and the Treaty of Conflans was signed. "He assented,
in terms at least, to all the demands of his antagonists. He
granted to the Duke of Berri the duchy of Normandy as an
apanage transmissible in perpetuity to his male heirs. ... The
confederates then laid down their arms. The wily monarch bided
his time. He had bestowed on them advantages which he well
knew would destroy their popularity and so subvert the basis
of their power, and which he also knew the state of public
opinion would not allow them to retain. To wrest those
advantages from their hands, it was only necessary to comply
with their last stipulation, and to convene the
States-General. They met accordingly, at Tours, on the 6th of
April, 1468." As Louis had anticipated--or, rather, as he had
planned--the States-General cancelled the grant of Normandy to
the Duke of Berri (which the king had been able already to
recover possession of, owing to quarrels between the dukes of
Berri and Brittany) and, generally, took away from the princes
of the League nearly all that they had extorted in the Treaty
of Conflans. On the express invitation of the king they
appointed a commission to reform abuses in the
government--which commission "attempted little and effected
nothing"--and, then, having assisted the cunning king to
overcome his threatening nobles, the States-General were
dissolved, to meet no more while Louis XI. occupied the
throne. In a desperate situation he had used the dangerous
weapon against his enemies with effect; he was too prudent to
draw it from the sheath a second time.
Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 11.
"The career of Louis XI. presents a curious problem. How could
a ruler whose morality fell below that of Jonathan Wild yet
achieve some of the greatest permanent results of patriotic
statesmanship, and be esteemed not only by himself but by so
calm an observer as Commines the model of kingly virtue? As to
Louis's moral character and principles, or want of principle,
not a doubt can be entertained. To say he committed the acts
of a villain is to fall far short of the truth. ... He
possessed a kind of religious belief, but it was a species of
religion which a respectable heathen would have scorned. He
attempted to bribe heaven, or rather the saints, just as he
attempted to win over his Swiss allies--that is, by gifts of
money. ... Yet this man, who was daunted by no cruelty, and
who could be bound by no oath save one, did work which all
statesmen must admire, and which French patriots must
fervently approve.
{1182}
He was the creator of modern France. When he came to the
throne it seemed more than likely that an utterly selfish and
treacherous nobility would tear the country in pieces. The
English still threatened to repeat the horrors of their
invasions. The House of Burgundy overbalanced the power of the
crown, and stimulated lawlessness throughout the whole
country. The peasantry were miserably oppressed, and the
middle classes could not prosper for want of that rule of law
which is the first requisite for civilization. When Louis
died, the existence of France and the power of the French
crown was secured: 'He had extended the frontiers of his
kingdom; Picardy, Provence, Burgundy, Anjou, Maine, Roussillon
had been compelled to acknowledge the immediate authority of
the crown.' He had crushed the feudal oligarchy; he had seen
his most dangerous enemy destroyed by the resistance of the
Swiss; he had baffled the attempt to construct a state which
would have imperilled the national existence of France; he had
put an end to all risk of English invasion; and he left France
the most powerful country in Europe. Her internal government
was no doubt oppressive, but, at any rate, it secured the rule
of law; and his schemes for her benefit were still unfinished.
He died regretting that he could not carry out his plans for
the reform of the law and for the protection of commerce; and,
in the opinion of Commines, if God had granted him the grace
of living five or six years more, he would greatly have
benefited his realm. He died commending his soul to the
intercession of the Virgin, and the last words caught from his
lips were: 'Lord, in thee have I trusted; let me never be
confounded.' Nor should this be taken as the expression of
hopeless self-delusion or gratuitous hypocrisy. In the opinion
of Commines, uttered after the king's death, 'he was more
wise, more liberal, and more virtuous in all things than any
contemporary sovereign.' The expressions of Commines were, it
may be said, but the echo of the low moral tone of the age.
This, no doubt, is true; but the fact that the age did not
condemn acts which, taken alone, seem to argue the utmost
depravity, still needs explanation. The matter is the more
worthy of consideration because Louis represents, though in an
exaggerated form, the vices and virtues of a special body of
rulers. He was the incarnation, so to speak, of kingcraft. The
word and the idea it represents have now become out of date,
but for about two centuries--say, roughly, from the middle of
the seventeenth century--the idea of a great king was that of
a monarch who ruled by means of cunning, intrigue, and
disregard of ordinary moral rules. We here come across the
fact which explains both the career and the reputation of
Louis and of others, such as Henry VII. of England, who were
masters of kingcraft. The universal feeling of the time,
shared by subjects no less than by rulers, was that a king was
not bound by the rules of morality, and especially by the
rules of honesty, which bind other men. Until you realize this
fact, nothing is more incomprehensible than the adulation
lavished by men such as Bacon or Casaubon on a ruler such as
James I. ... The real puzzle is to ascertain how this feeling
that kings were above the moral law came into existence. The
facts of history afford the necessary explanation. When the
modern European world was falling into shape the one thing
required for national prosperity was the growth of a power
which might check the disorders of the feudal nobility, and
secure for the mass of the people the blessings of an orderly
government. The only power which, in most cases, could achieve
this end, was the crown. In England the monarchs put an end to
the wars of the nobility. In France the growth of the monarchy
secured not only internal quiet, but protection from external
invasion. In these and in other cases the interest of the
crown and the interest of the people became for a time
identical. ... Acts which would have seemed villainous when
done to promote a purely private interest, became mere devices
of statesmanship when performed in the interest of the public.
The maxims that the king can do no wrong, and that the safety
of the people is the highest law, blended together in the
minds of ambitious rulers. The result was the production of
men like Louis XI."
A. V. Dicey,
Willert's Louis XI.
(The Nation, December 7, 1876).
"A careful examination of the reign of Louis the Eleventh has
particularly impressed upon me one fact, that the ends for
which he toiled and sinned throughout his whole life were
attained at last rather by circumstances than by his labours.
The supreme object of all his schemes was to crush that most
formidable of all his foes, Burgundy. And yet had Charles
confined his ambition within reasonable limits, had he
possessed an ordinary share of statecraft, and, above all,
could he have controlled those fiery passions, which drove him
to the verge of madness, he would have won the game quite
easily. Louis lacked one of the essential qualities of
statecraft--patience; and was wholly destitute of that
necessity of ambition--boldness. An irritable restlessness
was one of the salient points of his character. His courtiers
and attendants were ever intriguing to embroil him in war,
'because,' says Comines, 'the nature of the King was such,
that unless he was at war with some foreign prince, he would
certainly find some quarrel or other at home with his
servants, domestics, or officers, for his mind must be always
working.' His mood was ever changing, and he was by turns
confiding, suspicious, avaricious, prodigal, audacious, and
timid. He frequently nullified his most crafty schemes by
impatience for the result. He would sow the seed with the
utmost care, but he could not wait for the fructification. In
this he was false to the practice of those Italian statesmen
who were avowedly his models. It was this irritable
restlessness which brought down upon him the hatred of all
classes, from the noble to the serf; for we find him at one
time cunningly bidding for popularity, and immediately
afterwards destroying all he had gained by some rash and
inconsiderate act. His extreme timidity hampered the execution
of all his plans. He had not even the boldness of the coward
who will fight when all the strength is on his own side.
Constantly at war, during a reign of twenty-two years there
were fought but two battles, Montlehéry and Guingette, both of
which, strange to say, were undecided, and both of which were
fought against his will and counsel. ... He left France larger
by one-fourth than he had inherited it; but out of the five
provinces which he acquired, Provence was bequeathed him,
Roussillon was pawned to him by the usurping King of Navarre,
and Burgundy was won for him by the Swiss. His triumphs were
much more the result of fortune than the efforts of his own
genius."
Louis the Eleventh
(Temple Bar, volume 46, pages 523-524).
ALSO IN:
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 13.
P. F. Willert,
The Reign of Louis XI.
J. F. Kirk,
History of Charles the Bold,
book 1, chapters 4-6.
P. de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 1.
E. de Monstrelet,
Chronicles
(Johnes' translation),
book 3, chapters 99-153.
{1183}
FRANCE: A. D. 1467-1477.
The troubles of Louis XI. with Charles the Bold, of Burgundy.
Death of the Duke and Louis' acquisition of Burgundy.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468, to 1477.
FRANCE: A. D. 1483.
The kingdom as left by Louis XI.
Louis XI., who died Aug. 30, A. D. 1483, "had joined to the
crown Berry, the apanage of his brother, Provence, the duchy
of Burgundy, Anjou, Maine, Ponthieu, the counties of Auxerre,
of Mâcon, Charolais, the Free County, Artois, Marche,
Armagnac, Cerdagne, and Roussilon. ... The seven latter
provinces did not yet remain irrevocably united with France:
one part was given anew in apanage, and the other part
restored to foreign sovereigns, and only returned one by one
to the crown of France. ... The principal work of Louis XI.
was the abasement of the second feudality, which had raised
itself on the ruins of the first, and which, without him,
would have replunged France into anarchy. The chiefs of that
feudality were, however, more formidable, since, for the most
part, they belonged to the blood royal of France. Their
powerful houses, which possessed at the accession of that
prince a considerable part of the kingdom, were those of
Orleans, Anjou, Burgundy, and Bourbon. They found themselves
much weakened at his death, and dispossessed in great part, as
we have seen in the history of the reign, by confiscations,
treaties, gifts or heritages. By the side of these houses,
which issued from that of France, there were others whose
power extended still, at this period, in the limits of France
proper, over vast domains. Those of Luxembourg and La Mark
possessed great wealth upon the frontier of the north; that of
Vaudemont had inherited Lorraine and the duchy of Bar; the
house of La Tour was powerful in Auvergne; in the south the
houses of Foix and Albert ruled, the first in the valley of
Ariége, the second between the Adour and the Pyrenees. In the
west the house of Brittany had guarded its independence; but
the moment approached when this beautiful province was to be
forever united with the crown. Lastly, two foreign sovereigns
held possessions in France; the Pope had Avignon and the
county Venaissin; and the Duke of Savoy possessed, between the
Rhone and the Saône, Bugey and Valromey. The time was still
distant when the royal authority would be seen freely
exercised through every territory comprised in the natural
limits of the kingdom. But Louis XI. did much to attain this
aim, and after him no princely or vassal house was powerful
enough to resist the crown by its own forces, and to put the
throne in peril."
E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, pages 315-318,
and foot-note.
FRANCE: A. D. 1483.
Accession of King Charles VIII.
FRANCE: A. D. 1485-1487.
The League of the Princes.
Charles VIII., son and successor of Louis XI., came to the
throne at the age of thirteen, on the death of his father in
1483. His eldest sister, Anne, married to the Lord of Beaujeu,
made herself practically regent of the kingdom, by sheer
ability and force of character; and ruled during the minority,
pursuing the lines of her father's policy. The princes of the
blood-royal, with the Dukes of Orleans and Bourbon at their
head, formed a league against her. They were supported by many
nobles, including Philip de Commines, the Count of Dunois and
the Prince of Orange. They also received aid from the Duke of
Brittany, and from Maximilian of Austria, who now controlled
the Netherlands. Anne's general, La Trémouille, defeated the
league in a decisive battle (A. D. 1487) near St. Aubin du
Cormier, where the Duke of Orleans, the Prince of Orange, and
many nobles and knights were made prisoners. The Duke and the
Prince were sent to Anne, who shut them up in strong places,
while most of their companions were summarily executed.
E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
ch. 26.
FRANCE: A. D. 1491.
Brittany, the last of the great fiefs, united to the crown.
The end of the Feudal System.
See BRITTANY: A. D. 1491.
FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515.
The reigns of Charles VIII. and Louis XII.
Their Italian Expeditions and Wars.
The effects on France.
Beginning of the Renaissance.
Louis XI. was succeeded by his son, Charles VIII., a boy of
thirteen years, whose elder sister Anne governed the kingdom
ably until he came of age. She dealt firmly with a rebellion
of the nobles and suppressed it. She frustrated an intended
marriage of Anne of Brittany with Maximilian of Austria, which
would have drawn the last of the great semi-independent fiefs
into a dangerous relationship, and she made Charles instead of
his rival the husband of the Breton heiress. When Charles, who
had little intelligence, assumed the government, he was
excited with dreams of making good the pretensions of the
Second House of Anjou to the Kingdom of Naples. Those
pretensions, which had been bequeathed to Louis XI., and which
Charles VIII. had now inherited, had the following origin: "In
the eleventh century, Robert Guiscard, of the Norman family of
Hauteville, at the head of a band of adventurers, took
possession of Sicily and South Italy, then in a state of
complete anarchy. Roger, the son of Robert, founded the
Kingdom of the Two Sicilies under the Pope's suzerainty. In
1189 the Guiscard family became extinct, whereupon the German
Emperor laid claim to the kingdom in right of his wife
Constance, daughter of one of the Norman kings. The Roman
Pontiffs, dreading such powerful neighbours, were adverse to
the arrangement, and in 1254 King Conrad, being succeeded by
his son Conradin, still a minor, furnished a pretext for
bestowing the crown of the Two Sicilies on Charles d' Anjou,
brother of St. Louis. Manfred, guardian of the boy Conradin,
and a natural son of the Emperor Frederick II., raised an army
against Charles d' Anjou, but was defeated, and fell in the
encounter of 1266. Two years later, Prince Conradin was
cruelly beheaded in Naples. Before his death, however, he made
a will, by which he invested Peter III. of Aragon, son-in-law
of Manfred, with full power over the Two Sicilies, exhorting
him to avenge his death [see ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].
{1184}
This bequest was the origin of the rivalry between the houses
of Aragon and Anjou, a rivalry which developed into open
antagonism when the island of Sicily was given up to Peter of
Aragon and his descendants, while Charles d' Anjou still held
Naples for himself and his heirs [see ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300].
In 1435 Joan II., Queen of Naples, bequeathed her estates to
Alfonso V. of Aragon, surnamed the Magnanimous, to the
exclusion of Louis III. of Anjou. After a long and bloody
struggle, Alfonso succeeded in driving the Anjou dynasty out
of Naples [see ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414]. Louis
III. was the last representative of this once-powerful family.
He returned to France, survived his defeat two-and-twenty
years, and by his will left all his rights to the Count of
Maine, his nephew, who, on his death, transferred them to
Louis XI. The wily Louis was not tempted to claim this
worthless legacy. His successor, Charles VIII., less
matter-of-fact, and more romantic, was beguiled into a series
of brilliant, though sterile, expeditions, disastrous to
national interests, neglecting the Flemish provinces, the
liege vassals of France, and thoroughly French at heart.
Charles VIII. put himself at the head of his nobles, made a
triumphal entry into Naples and returned without having gained
an inch of territory [see ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494, and 1494-1496].
De Commines judges the whole affair a mystery; it was,
in fact, one of those dazzling and chivalrous adventures with
which the French delighted to astonish Europe. Louis XII.,
like Charles VIII. [whom he succeeded in 1498], proclaimed his
right to Naples, and also to the Duchy of Milan, inherited
from his grandmother, Valentine de Visconti. These pretended
rights were more than doubtful. The Emperor Wenceslas, on
conferring the duchy on the Viscontis, excluded women from the
inheritance, and both Louis XI. and Charles VIII. recognised
the validity of the Salic law in Milan by concluding an
alliance with the Sforzas. The seventeen years of Louis XII.'s
reign was absorbed in these Italian wars, in which the French
invariably began by victory, and as invariably ended in
defeat. The League of Cambrai, the Battles of Agnadel,
Ravenna, Novara, the Treaties of Grenada and Blois, are the
principal episodes of this unlucky campaign."
C. Coignet,
Francis the First and His Times,
chapter 3.
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.
"The warriors of France came back from Italy with the wonders
of the South on their lips and her treasures in their hands.
They brought with them books and paintings, they brought with
them armour inlaid with gold and silver, tapestries enriched
with precious metals, embroidered clothing, and even household
furniture. Distributed by many hands in many different places,
each precious thing became a separate centre of initiative
power. The châteaux of the country nobles boasted the
treasures which had fallen to the share of their lords at
Genoa or at Naples; and the great women of the court were
eager to divide the spoil. The contagion spread rapidly. Even
in the most fantastic moment of Gothic inspiration, the French
artist gave evidence that his right hand obeyed a national
instinct for order, for balance, for completeness, and that
his eye preferred, in obedience to a national predilection,
the most refined harmonies of colour. Step by step he had been
feeling his way; now, the broken link of tradition was again
made fast; the workmen of Paris and the workmen of Athens
joined hands, united by the genius of Italy. It must not,
however, be supposed that no intercourse had previously
existed between France and Italy. The roads by Narbonne and
Lyons were worn by many feet. The artists of Tours and
Poitiers, the artists of Paris and Dijon, were alike familiar
with the path to Rome. But an intercourse, hitherto
restricted, was rendered by the wars of Charles VIII. all but
universal. ... Cruelly as the Italians had suffered at the
hands of Charles VIII. they still looked to France for help;
they knew that though they had been injured they had not been
betrayed. But the weak and generous impulses of Charles VIII.
found no place in the councils of his successors. ... The doom
of Italy was pronounced. Substantially the compact was this.
Aided by Borgia, the French were to destroy the free cities of

the north, and in return France was to aid Borgia in breaking
the power of the independent nobles who yet resisted Papal
aggression in the south. In July 1499 the work began. At first
the Italians failed to realise what had taken place. When the
French army entered the Milanese territory the inhabitants
fraternised with the troops, Milan, Genoa, Pavia opened their
gates with joy. But in a few months the course of events, in
the south, aroused a dread anxiety. There, Borgia, under the
protection of the French king, and with the assistance of the
French arms, was triumphantly glutting his brutal rage and
lust, whilst Frenchmen were forced to look on helpless and
indignant. Milan, justly terrified, made an attempt to throw
herself on the mercy of her old ruler. To no purpose. Louis
went back over the Alps, leaving a strong hand and a strong
garrison in Milan, and dragging with him the unfortunate Louis
Sforza, a miserable proof of the final destruction of the most
brilliant court of Upper Italy. ... By the campaign of 1507,
the work, thus begun, was consummated. The ancient spirit of
independence still lingered in Genoa, and Venice was not yet
crushed. There were still fresh laurels to be won. In this
Holy War the Pope and the Emperor willingly joined forces with
France. ... The deathblow was first given to Genoa. She was
forced, Marot tells us, 'la corde au coul, la glaive sous la
gorge, implorer la clémence de ce prince.' Venice was next
traitorously surprised and irreparably injured. Having thus
brilliantly achieved the task of first destroying the lettered
courts, and next the free cities of Italy, Louis died,
bequeathing to François I. the shame of fighting out a
hopeless struggle for supremacy against allies who, no longer
needing help, had combined to drive the French from the field.
There was, indeed, one other duty to be performed. The
shattered remains of Italian civilisation might be collected,
and Paris might receive the men whom Italy could no longer
employ. The French returned to France empty of honour, gorged
with plunder, satiated with rape and rapine, boasting of
cities sacked, and garrisons put to the sword. They had sucked
the lifeblood of Italy, but her death brought new life to
France. The impetus thus acquired by art and letters coincided
with a change in political and social constitutions. The
gradual process of centralisation which had begun with Louis
XI. transformed the life of the whole nation. ... The royal
court began to take proportions hitherto unknown.
{1185}
It gradually became a centre which gathered together the rich,
the learned, and the skilled. Artists, who had previously been
limited in training, isolated in life, and narrowed in
activity by the rigid conservative action of the great guilds
and corporations, were thus brought into immediate contact
with the best culture of their day. For the Humanists did not
form a class apart, and their example incited those with whom
they lived to effort after attainments as varied as their own,
whilst the Court made a rallying point for all, which gave a
sense of countenance and protection even to those who might
never hope to enter it. ... Emancipation of the individual is
the watchword of the sixteenth century; to the artist it
brought relief from the trammels of a caste thraldom, and the
ceaseless efforts of the Humanists find an answer even in the
new forms seen slowly breaking through the sheath of Gothic
art."
Mrs. Mark Pattison,
The Renaissance of Art in France,
volume 1, chapter 1.
FRANCE: 16th Century.
Renaissance and Reformation.
"The first point of difference to be noted between the
Renaissance in France and the Renaissance in Italy is one of
time. Roughly speaking it may be said that France was a
hundred years behind Italy. ... But if the French Renaissance
was a later and less rapid growth, it was infinitely hardier.
The Renaissance literature in Italy was succeeded by a long
period of darkness, which remained unbroken, save by fitful
gleams of light, till the days of Alfieri. The Renaissance
literature in France was the prelude to a literature, which,
for vigour, variety, and average excellence, has in modern
times rarely, if ever, been surpassed. The reason for this
superiority on the part of France, for the fact that the
Renaissance produced there more abiding and more far-reaching
results, may be ascribed partly to the natural law that
precocious and rapid growths are always less hardy than later
and more gradual ones, partly to the character of the French
nation, to its being at once more intellectual and less
imaginative than the Italian, and therefore more influenced by
the spirit of free inquiry than by the worship of beauty;
partly to the greater unity and vitality of its political
life, but in a large measure to the fact that in France the
Renaissance came hand in hand with the Reformation. ... We
must look upon the Reformation as but a fresh development of
the Renaissance movement, as the result of the spirit of free
inquiry carried into theology, as a revolt against the
authority of the Roman Church. Now the Renaissance in Italy
preceded the Reformation by more than a century. There is no
trace in it of any desire to criticise the received theology.
... In France on the other hand the new learning and the new
religion, Greek and heresy, became almost controvertible
terms. Lefèvre d' Étaples, the doyen of French humanists,
translated the New Testament into French in 1524: the
Estiennes, the Hebrew scholar François Vatable, Turnèbe,
Ramus, the great surgeon Ambroise Paré, the artists Bernard
Palissy and Jean Goujon were all avowed protestants; while
Clement Marot, Budé, and above all Rabelais, for a time at
least, looked on the reformation with more or less favour. In
fact so long as the movement appeared to them merely as a
revolt against the narrowness and illiberality of monastic
theology, as an assertion of the freedom of the human
intellect, the men of letters and culture with hardly an
exception joined hands with the reformers. It was only when
they found that it implied a moral as well as an intellectual
regeneration, that it began to wear for some of them a less
congenial aspect. This close connexion between the Reformation
and the revival of learning was, on the whole, a great gain to
France. It was not as in Germany, where the stronger growth of
the Reformation completely choked the other. In France they
met on almost equal terms, and the result was that the whole
movement was thereby strengthened and elevated both
intellectually and morally. ... French humanism can boast of a
long roll of names honourable not only for their high
attainments, but also for their integrity and purity of life.
Robert Estienne, Turnèbe, Ramus, Cujas, the Chancellor de
l'Hôpital, Estienne Pasquier, Thou, are men whom any country
would be proud to claim for her sons. And as with the
humanists, so it was with the Renaissance generally in France.
On the whole it was a manly and intelligent movement. ... The
literature of the French Renaissance, though in point of form
it is far below that of the Italian Renaissance, in manliness
and vigour and hopefulness is far superior to it. It is in
short a literature, not of maturity, but of promise. One has
only to compare its greatest name, Rabelais, with the greatest
name of the Italian Renaissance, Ariosto, to see the
difference. How formless! how crude! how gross! how full of
cumbersome details and wearisome repetitions is Rabelais! How
limpid! how harmonious is Ariosto! what perfection of style,
what delicacy of touch! He never wearies us, he never offends
our taste. And yet one rises from the reading of Rabelais with
a feeling of buoyant cheerfulness, while Ariosto in spite of
his wit and gaiety is inexpressibly depressing. The reason is
that the one bids us hope, the other bids us despair; the one
believes in truth and goodness and in the future of the human
race, the other believes in nothing but the pleasures of the
senses, which come and go like many-coloured bubbles and leave
behind them a boundless ennui. Rabelais and Ariosto are true
types of the Renaissance as it appeared in their respective
countries."
A. Tilley,
The Literature of the French Renaissance,
chapter 2.
FRANCE: A. D. 1501-1504.
Treaty of Louis XII. with Ferdinand of Aragon for the
partition of Naples.
French and Spanish conquest.
Quarrel of the confederates, and war.
The Spaniards in possession of the Neapolitan domain.
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
FRANCE: A. D. 1504.
Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland banks.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
FRANCE: A. D. 1504-1506.
The treaties of Blois, with Ferdinand and Maximilian, and the
abrogation of them.
Relinquishment of claims on Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.
FRANCE: A. D. 1507.
Revolt and subjugation of Genoa.
See GENOA: A. D. 1500-1507.
FRANCE: A. D. 1508-1509.
The League of Cambrai against Venice.
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
FRANCE: A. D. 1510-1513.
The breaking up of the League of Cambrai.
The Holy League formed by Pope Julius II. against Louis XII.
The French expelled from Milan and all Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
{1186}
FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
English invasion under Henry VIII.
The Battle of the Spurs.
Marriage of Louis XII. with Mary of England.
The King's death.
Accession of Francis I.
"The long preparations of Henry VIII. of England for the
invasion of France [in pursuance of the 'Holy League' against
Louis XII., formed by Pope Julius II. and renewed by Leo
X.,--see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513] being completed, that king,
in the summer of 1513, landed at Calais, whither a great part
of his army had already been transported. The offer of 100,000
golden crowns easily persuaded the Emperor to promise his
assistance, at the head of a body of Swiss and Germans. But at
the moment Henry was about to penetrate into France, he
received the excuses of Maximilian, who, notwithstanding a
large advance received from England, found himself unable to
levy the promised succours. Nothing disheartened by this
breach of faith, the King of England had already advanced into
Artois; when the Emperor, attended by a few German nobles,
appeared in the English camp, and was cordially welcomed by
Henry, who duly appreciated his military skill and local
knowledge. A valuable accession of strength was also obtained
by the junction of a large body of Swiss, who, encouraged by
the victory of Novara, had already crossed the Jura, and now
marched to the seat of war. The poverty of the Emperor
degraded him to the rank of a mercenary of England; and Henry
consented to grant him the daily allowance of 100 crowns for
his table. But humiliating as this compact was to Maximilian,
the King of England reaped great benefit from his presence. A
promiscuous multitude of Germans had flocked to the English
camp, in hopes of partaking in the spoil; and the arrival of
their valiant Emperor excited a burst of enthusiasm. The siege
of Terouenne was formed: but the bravery of the besieged
baffled the efforts of the allies; and a month elapsed, during
which the English sustained severe loss from frequent and
successful sorties. By the advice of the Emperor, Henry
resolved to risk a battle with the French, and the plain of
Guinegate was once more the field of conflict [August 18,
1513]. This spot, where Maximilian had formerly struck terror
into the legions of Louis XI., now became the scene of a rapid
and undisputed victory. The French were surprised by the
allies, and gave way to a sudden panic; and the shameful
flight of the cavalry abandoned the bravest of their leaders
to the hands of their enemies. The Duke of Longueville, La
Palisse, Imbercourt, and the renowned Chevalier Bayard, were
made prisoners; and the ridicule of the conquerors
commemorated the inglorious flight by designating the rout as
the Battle of the Spurs. The capture of Terouenne immediately
followed; and the fall of Tournay soon afterwards opened a
splendid prospect to the King of England. Meanwhile the safety
of France was threatened in another quarter. A large body of
Swiss, levied in the name of Maximilian but paid with the gold
of the Pope, burst into Burgundy; and Dijon was with difficulty
saved from capture. From this danger, however, France was
extricated by the dexterous negotiation of Trémouille; and the
Swiss were induced to withdraw. ... Louis now became seriously
desirous of peace. He made overtures to the Pope, and was
received into favour upon consenting to renounce the Council
of Pisa. He conciliated the Kings of Aragon and England by
proposals of marriage; he offered his second daughter Renée to
the young Charles of Spain; and his second Queen, Anne of
Bretainy, being now dead, he proposed to unite himself with
Mary of England, the favourite sister of Henry. ... But though
peace was made upon this footing, the former of the projected
marriages never took place: the latter; however, was
magnificently solemnized, and proved fatal to Louis. The
amorous King forgot his advanced age in the arms of his young
and beautiful bride; his constitution gave way under the
protracted festivities consequent on his nuptials; and on the
1st of January, 1515, Louis XII. was snatched from his adoring
people, in his 53d year. He was succeeded by his kinsman and
son-in-law, Francis, Count of Angoulême, who stood next in
hereditary succession, and was reputed one of the most
accomplished princes that ever mounted the throne of France."
Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapter 38 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
chapter 1.
L. von Ranke,
History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
from 1494 to 1514,
book 2, chapter 4, sections 7-8.
FRANCE: A. D. 1515.
Accession of Francis I.
His invasion of Italy.
The Battle of Marignano.
"François I. was in his 21st year when he ascended the throne
of France. His education in all manly accomplishments was
perfect, and ... he manifested ... an intelligence which had
been carefully cultivated. ... Unfortunately his moral
qualities had been profoundly corrupted by the example of his
mother, Louise of Savoy, a clever and ambitious woman, but
selfish, unscrupulous, and above all shamelessly licentious.
Louise had been an object of jealousy to Anne of Britany, who
had always kept her in the shade, and she now snatched eagerly
at the prospect of enjoying power and perhaps of reigning in
the name of her son, whose love for his mother led him to
allow her to exercise an influence which was often fatal to
the interests of his kingdom. ... Charles duke of Bourbon, who
was notoriously the favoured lover of Louise, was appointed to
the office of constable, which had remained vacant since 1488;
and one of her favourite ministers, Antoine Duprat, first
president of the parliament of Paris, was entrusted with the
seals. Both were men of great capacity; but the first was
remarkable for his pride, and the latter for his moral
depravity. The first cares of the new king of France were to
prepare for war. ... Unfortunately for his country, François
I. shared in the infatuation which had dragged his
predecessors into the wars in Italy; and all these warlike
preparations were designed for the reconquest of Milan. He had
already intimated his design by assuming at his coronation the
titles of king of France and duke of Milan. ... He entered
into an alliance with Charles of Austria, prince of Castile,
who had now reached his majority and assumed the government of
the Netherlands. ... A treaty between these two princes,
concluded on the 24th of March, 1515, guaranteed to each party
not only the estates they held or which might subsequently
descend to them, but even their conquests. ... The republic of
Venice and the king of England renewed the alliances into
which they had entered with the late king, but Ferdinand of
Aragon refused even to prolong the truce unless the whole of
Italy were included in it, and he entered into a separate
alliance with the emperor, the duke of Milan, and the Swiss,
to oppose the designs of the French king.
{1187}
The efforts of François I. to gain over the Swiss had been
defeated by the influence of the cardinal of Sion. Yet the
pope, Leo X., hesitated, and avoided compromising himself with
either party. In the course of the month of July [1515], the
most formidable army which had yet been led from France into
Italy was assembled in the district between Grenoble and
Embrun, and the king, after entrusting the regency to his
mother, Louise, with unlimited powers, proceeded to place
himself at its head."
T. Wright,
History of France,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).
"The passes in Italy had already been occupied by the Swiss
under their captain general Galeazzo Visconti. Galeazzo makes
their number not more than 6,000. ... They were posted at
Susa, commanding the two roads from Mont Cenis and Geneva, by
one of which the French must pass or abandon their artillery.
In this perplexity it was proposed by Triulcio to force a
lower passage across the Cottian Alps leading to Saluzzo. The
attempt was attended with almost insurmountable difficulties.
... But the French troops with wonderful spirits and alacrity
... were not to be baffled. They dropped their artillery by
cables from steep to steep; down one range of mountains and up
another, until five days had been spent in this perilous
enterprise, and they found themselves safe in the plains of
Saluzzo. Happily the Swiss, secure in their position at Susa,
had never dreamed of the possibility of such a passage. ...
Prosper Colonna, who commanded in Italy for the Pope, was
sitting down to his comfortable dinner at Villa Franca, when a
scout covered with dust dashed into his apartment announcing
that the French had crossed the Alps. The next minute the town
was filled with the advanced guard, under the Sieur
d'Ymbercourt and the celebrated Bayard. The Swiss at Susa had
still the advantage of position, and might have hindered the
passage of the main body of the French; but they had no horse
to transport their artillery, were badly led, and evidently
divided in their councils. They retired upon Novara," and to
Milan, intending to effect a junction with the viceroy of
Naples, who advanced to Cremona. On the morning of the 13th of
September, Cardinal Scheimer harangued the Swiss and urged
them to attack the French in their camp, which was at
Marignano, or Melignano, twelve miles away. His fatal advice
was acted on with excitement and haste. "The day was hot and
dusty. The advanced guard of the French was under the command
of the Constable of Bourbon, whose vigilance defeated any
advantage the Swiss might otherwise have gained by the
suddenness and rapidity of their movements. At nine o'clock in
the morning, as Bourbon was sitting down at table, a scout,
dripping with water, made his appearance. He had left Milan
only a few hours before, had waded the canals, and came to
announce the approach of the enemy. ... The Swiss came on
apace; they had disencumbered themselves of their hats and
caps, and thrown off their shoes, the better to fight without
slipping. They made a dash at the French artillery, and were
foiled after hard fighting. ... It was an autumnal afternoon;
the sun had gone down; dust and night-fall separated and
confused the combatants. The French trumpets sounded a
retreat; both, armies crouched down in the darkness within
cast of a tennis-ball of each other. ... Where they fought,
there each man laid down to rest when darkness came on, within
hand-grip of his foe." The next morning, "the autumnal mist
crawled slowly away, and once more exposed the combatants to
each other's view. The advantage of the ground was on the side
of the French. They were drawn up in a valley protected by a
ditch full of water. Though the Swiss had taken no refreshment
that night, they renewed the fight with unimpaired animosity
and vigour. ... Francis, surrounded by a body of mounted
gentlemen, performed prodigies of valour. The night had given
him opportunity for the better arrangement of his troops; and
as the day wore on, and the sun grew hot, the Swiss, though
'marvellously deliberate, brave, and obstinate,' began to give
way. The arrival of the Venetian general, D'Alviano, with
fresh troops, made the French victory complete. But the Swiss
retreated inch by inch with the greatest deliberation,
carrying off their great guns on their shoulders. ... The
French were too exhausted to follow. And their victory had
cost them dear; for the Swiss, with peculiar hatred to the
French gentry and the lance-knights, had shown no mercy. They
spared none, and made no prisoners. The glory of the battle
was great. ... The Swiss, the best troops in Europe, and
hitherto reckoned invincible ... had been the terror and
scourge of Italy, equally formidable to friend and foe, and
now their prestige was extinguished. But it was not in these
merely military aspects that the battle of Marignano was
important. No one who reads the French chronicles of the
times, can fail to perceive that it was a battle of opinions
and of classes even more than of nations; of a fierce and
rising democratical element, now rolled back for a short
season, only to display itself in another form against royalty
and nobility;--of the burgher classes against feudality. ... The
old romantic element, overlaid for a time by the political
convulsions of the last century, had once more gained the
ascendant. It was to blaze forth and revive, before it died
out entirely, in the Sydneys and Raleighs of Queen Elizabeth's
reign; it was to lighten up the glorious imagination of
Spenser before it faded into the dull prose of Puritan
divinity, and the cold grey dawn of inductive philosophy. But
its last great battle was the battle of Marignano."
J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
volume 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
Miss Pardoe,
Court and Reign of Francis I.,
volume 1, chapters 6-7.
L. Larchey,
History of Bayard,
book 3, chapters 1-2.
FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.
Francis I. in possession of Milan.
His treaties with the Swiss and the Pope.
Nullification of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
The Concordat of Bologna.
"On the 15th of September, the day after the battle [of
Marignano], the Swiss took the road back to their mountains.
Francis I. entered Milan in triumph. Maximilian Sforza took
refuge in the castle, and twenty days afterwards on the 4th of
October, surrendered, consenting to retire to France, with a
pension of 30,000 crowns, and the promise of being recommended
for a cardinal's hat, and almost consoled for his downfall 'by
the pleasure of being delivered from the insolence of the
Swiss, the exactions of the Emperor Maximilian, and the
rascalities of the Spaniards.' Fifteen years afterwards, in
June, 1530, he died in oblivion at Paris.
{1188}
Francis I. regained possession of all Milaness, adding
thereto, with the pope's consent, the duchies of Parma and
Piacenza, which had been detached from it. ... Two treaties,
one of November 7, 1515, and the other of November 29, 1516,
re-established not only peace, but perpetual alliance, between
the King of France and the thirteen Swiss Cantons, with
stipulated conditions in detail. Whilst these negotiations
were in progress, Francis I. and Leo X., by a treaty published
at Viterbo, on the 13th of October, proclaimed their hearty
reconciliation. The pope guaranteed to Francis I. the duchy of
Milan, restored to him those of Parma and Piacenza, and
recalled his troops which were still serving against the
Venetians." At the same time, arrangements were made for a
personal meeting of the pope and the French king, which took
place at Bologna in December, 1515. "Francis did not attempt
to hide his design of reconquering the kingdom of Naples,
which Ferdinand the Catholic had wrongfully usurped, and he
demanded the pope's countenance. The pope did not care to
refuse, but he pointed out to the king that everything
foretold the very near death of King Ferdinand; and 'Your
Majesty,' said he, 'will then have a natural opportunity for
claiming your rights; and as for me, free, as I shall then be,
from my engagements with the King of Arragon in respect of the
crown of Naples, I shall find it easier to respond to your
majesty's wish.' The pope merely wanted to gain time. Francis,
putting aside for the moment the kingdom of Naples, spoke of
Charles VII.'s Pragmatic Sanction [see above: A. D. 1438], and
the necessity of putting an end to the difficulties which had
arisen on this subject between the court of Rome and the Kings
of France, his predecessors. 'As to that,' said the pope, 'I
could not grant what your predecessors demanded; but be not
uneasy; I have a compensation to propose to you which will
prove to you how dear your interests are to me.' The two
sovereigns had, without doubt, already come to an
understanding on this point, when, after a three days'
interview with Leo X., Francis I. returned to Milan, leaving
at Bologna, for the purpose of treating in detail the affair
of the Pragmatic Sanction, his chancellor, Duprat, who had
accompanied him during all this campaign as his adviser and
negotiator. ... The popes ... had all of them protested since
the days of Charles VII. against the Pragmatic Sanction as an
attack upon their rights, and had demanded its abolition. In
1461, Louis XI. ... had yielded for a moment to the demand of
Pope Pius II., whose countenance he desired to gain, and had
abrogated the Pragmatic; but, not having obtained what he
wanted thereby, and having met with strong opposition in the
Parliament of Paris to his concession, he had let it drop
without formally retracting it. ... This important edict,
then, was still vigorous in 1515, when Francis I., after his
victory at Melegnano and his reconciliation with the pope,
left Chancellor Duprat at Bologna to pursue the negotiation
reopened on that subject. The 'compensation,' of which Leo X.,
on redemanding the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, had
given a peep to Francis I., could not fail to have charms for
a prince so little scrupulous, and for his still less
scrupulous chancellor. The pope proposed that the Pragmatic,
once for all abolished, should be replaced by a Concordat
between the two sovereigns, and that this Concordat, whilst
putting a stop to the election of the clergy by the faithful,
should transfer to the king the right of nomination to
bishoprics and other great ecclesiastical offices and
benefices, reserving to the pope the right of presentation of
prelates nominated by the king. This, considering the
condition of society and government in the 16th century, in
the absence of political and religious liberty, was to take
away from the church her own existence, and divide her between
two masters, without giving her, as regarded either of them,
any other guarantee of independence than the mere chance of
their dissensions and quarrels. ... Francis I. and his
chancellor saw in the proposed Concordat nothing but the great
increment of influence it secured to them, by making all the
dignitaries of the church suppliants at first and then clients
of the kingship. After some difficulties as to points of
detail, the Concordat was concluded and signed on the 18th of
August, 1516. Five months afterwards, on the 5th of February,
1517, the king repaired in person to Parliament, to which he
had summoned many prelates and doctors of the University. The
Chancellor explained the points of the Concordat. ... The king
ordered its registration, 'for the good of his kingdom and for
quittance of the promise he had given the pope.'" For more
than a year the Parliament of Paris resisted the royal order,
and it was not until the 22d of March, 1518, that it yielded
to the king's threats and proceeded to registration of the
Concordat, with forms and reservations "which were evidence of
compulsion. The other Parliaments of France followed with more
or less zeal ... the example shown by that of Paris. The
University was heartily disposed to push resistance farther
than had been done by Parliament."
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 28 (volume 4).
"The execution of the Concordat was vigorously contested for
years afterwards. Cathedrals and monastic chapters proceeded
to elect bishops and abbots under the provisions of the
Pragmatic Sanction; and every such case became a fresh source
of exasperation between the contending powers. ... But the
Parliament, though clamouring loudly for the 'Gallican
liberties,' and making a gallant stand for national
independence as against the usurpations of Rome, was unable to
maintain its ground against the overpowering despotism of the
Crown. The monarchical authority ultimately achieved a
complete triumph. In 1527 a peremptory royal ordinance
prohibited the courts of Parliament from taking further
cognisance of causes affecting elections to consistorial
benefices and conventual priories; and all such matters were
transferred to the sole jurisdiction of the Council of State.
After this the agitation against the Concordat gradually
subsided. But although, in virtue of its compulsory
registration by the Parliament, the Concordat became part of
the law of the land, it is certain that the Gallican Church
never accepted this flagrant invasion of its liberties."
W. H. Jervis,
History of the Church of France,
volume 1, pages 109-110.
{1189}
FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1547.
The institution of the Court.
Its baneful influence.
"Francis I. instituted the Court, and this had a decisive
influence upon the manners of the nobility. Those lords, whose
respect royalty had difficulty in keeping when they were at
their castles, having come to court, prostrated themselves
before the throne, and yielded obedience with their whole
hearts. A few words will describe this Court. The king lodged
and fed in his own large palace, which was fitted for the
purpose, the flower of the French nobility. Some of these
lords were in his service, under the title of officers of his
household--as chamberlains, purveyors, equerries, &c. Large
numbers of domestic offices were created solely as an excuse
for their presence. Others lived there, without duties, simply
as guests. All these, besides lodging and food, had often a
pension as well. A third class were given only a lodging, and
provided their own table; but all were amused and entertained
with various pleasures, at the expense of the king. Balls,
carousals, stately ceremonials, grand dinners, theatricals,
conversations inspired by the presence of fair women, constant
intercourse of all kinds, where each could choose for himself,
and where the refined and literary found a place as well as
the vain and profligate,--such was court life, a truly
different thing from the monotonous and brutal existence of
the feudal lord at his castle in the depths of his province.
So, from all sides, nobles flocked to court, to gratify both
the most refined tastes and the most degraded passions. Some
came hoping to make their fortune, a word from the king
sufficing to enrich a man; others came to gain a rank in the
army, a lucrative post in the finance department, an abbey, or
a bishopric. From the time kings held court, it became almost
a law, that nothing should be granted to a nobleman who lived
beyond its pale. Those lords who persisted in staying on their
own estates were supposed to rail against the administration, or,
as we of the present would express it, to be in opposition.
'They must indeed be men of gross minds who are not tempted by
the polish of the court; at all events it is very insolent in
them to show so little wish to see their sovereign, and enjoy
the honor of living under his roof.' Such was almost precisely
the opinion of the king in regard to the provincial nobility.
... Ambition drew the nobles to court; ambition, society, and
dissipation kept them there. To incur the displeasure of their
master, and be exiled from court was, first, to lose all hope
of advancement, and then to fall from paradise into purgatory.
It killed some people. But life was much more expensive at
court than in the castles. As in all society where each is
constantly in the presence of his neighbor, there was
unbounded rivalry as to who should be most brilliant, most
superb. The old revenues did not suffice, while, at the same
time, the inevitable result of the absence of the lords was to
decrease them. Whilst the expenses of the noblemen at Chambord
or Versailles were steadily on the increase, his intendant,
alone and unrestrained upon the estate, filled his own
pockets, and sent less money every quarter, so that, to keep
up the proper rank, the lord was forced to beg a pension from
the king. Low indeed was the downfall of the old pride and
feudal independence! The question was how to obtain these
pensions, ranks, offices, and favors of all kinds. The virtues
most prized and rewarded by the kings were not civic
virtues,--capacity, and services of value for the public
good; what pleased them was, naturally, devotion to their
person, blind obedience, flattery, and subservience."
P. Lacombe,
A Short History of the French People,
chapter 23.
FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.
Maximilian's attempt against Milan.
Diplomatic intrigues.
The Treaty of Noyon.
After Francis I. had taken possession of Milan, and while Pope
Leo X. was making professions of friendship to him at Bologna,
a scheme took shape among the French king's enemies for
depriving him of his conquest, and the pope was privy to it.
"Henry VIII. would not openly break the peace between England
and France, but he offered to supply Maximilian with Swiss
troops for an attack upon Milan. It was useless to send money
to Maximilian, who would have spent it on himself"; but troops
were hired for the emperor by the English agent, Pace, and "at
the beginning of March [1516] the joint army of Maximilian and
the Swiss assembled at Trent. On March 24 they were within a
few miles of Milan, and their success seemed sure, when
suddenly Maximilian found that his resources were exhausted
and refused to proceed; next day he withdrew his troops and
abandoned his allies. ... The expedition was a total failure;
yet English gold had not been spent in vain, as the Swiss were
prevented from entirely joining the French, and Francis I. was
reminded that his position in Italy was by no means secure.
Leo X., meanwhile, in the words of Pace, 'had played
marvellously with both hands in this enterprise.' ... England
was now the chief opponent of the ambitious schemes of France,
and aimed at bringing about a league with Maximilian, Charles
[who had just succeeded Ferdinand of Spain, deceased January
23, 1516], the Pope, and the Swiss. But Charles's ministers,
chief of whom was Croy, lord of Chievres, had a care above all
for the interests of Flanders, and so were greatly under the
influence of France. ... France and England entered into a
diplomatic warfare over the alliance with Charles. First,
England on April 19 recognised Charles as King of Spain,
Navarre, and the Two Sicilies; then Wolsey strove to make
peace between Venice and Maximilian as a first step towards
detaching Venice from its French alliance." On the other hand,
negotiations were secretly carried on and (August 13) "the
treaty of Noyon was concluded between Francis I. and Charles.
Charles was to marry Louise, the daughter of Francis I., an
infant of one year old, and receive as her dower the French
claims on Naples; Venice was to pay Maximilian 200,000 ducats
for Brescia and Verona; in case he refused this offer and
continued the war, Charles was at liberty to help his
grandfather, and Francis I. to help the Venetians, without any
breach of the peace now made between them. ... In spite of the
efforts of England, Francis I. was everywhere successful in
settling his difficulties. On November 29 a perpetual peace
was made at Friburg between France and the Swiss Cantons; on
December 3 the treaty of Noyon was renewed, and Maximilian was
included in its provisions. Peace was made between him and
Venice by the provision that Maximilian was to hand over
Verona to Charles, who in turn should give it up to the King
of France, who delivered it to the Venetians; Maximilian in
return received 100,000 ducats from Venice and as much from
France. The compact was duly carried out: 'On February 8,
1517,' wrote the Cardinal of Sion, 'Verona belonged to the
Emperor; on the 9th to the King Catholic; on the 15th to the
French; on the 17th to the Venetians.' Such was the end of the
wars that had arisen from the League of Cambrai. After a struggle
of eight years the powers that had confederated to destroy
Venice came together to restore her to her former place.
Venice might well exult in this reward of her long constancy,
her sacrifices and her disasters."
M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy, during the Period
of the Reformation,
book 5, chapter 19 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
J. S. Brewer,
The Reign of Henry VIII.,
chapters 4-6 (volume 1).
{1190}
FRANCE: A. D. 1519.
Candidacy of Francis I. for Imperial crown.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.
FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
Rivalry of Francis I. and Charles V.
The Emperor's successes in Italy and Navarre.
Milan again taken from France.
The wrongs and the treason of the Constable of Bourbon.
"With their candidature for the Imperial crown, burst forth
the inextinguishable rivalry between Francis I. and Charles V.
The former claimed Naples for himself and Navarre for Henry
d'Albret: the Emperor demanded the Milanese as a fief of the
Empire, and the Duchy of Burgundy. Their resources were about
equal. If the empire of Charles were more extensive the
kingdom of France was more compact. The Emperor's subjects
were richer, but his authority more circumscribed. The
reputation of the French cavalry was not inferior to that of
the Spanish infantry. Victory would belong to the one who
should win over the King of England to his side. ... Both gave
pensions to his Prime Minister, Cardinal Wolsey; they each asked
the hand of his daughter Mary, one for the dauphin, the other
for himself. Francis I. obtained from him an interview at
Calais, and forgetting that he wished to gain his favour,
eclipsed him by his elegance and magnificence [see FIELD OF
THE CLOTH OF GOLD]. Charles V., more adroit, had anticipated
this interview by visiting Henry VIII. in England. He had
secured Wolsey by giving him hopes of the tiara. ...
Everything succeeded with the Emperor. He gained Leo X. to his
side and thus obtained sufficient influence to raise his
tutor, Adrian of Utrecht, to the papacy [on the death of Leo,
Dec. 1, 1521]. The French penetrated into Spain, but arrived
too late to aid the rising there [in Navarre, 1521]. The
governor of the Milanese, Lautrec, who is said to have exiled
from Milan nearly half its inhabitants, was driven out of
Lombardy [and the Pope retook Parma and Placentia]. He met
with the same fate again in the following year: the Swiss, who
were ill-paid, asked either for dismissal or battle, and allowed
themselves to be beaten at La Bicoque [April 29, 1522]. The
money intended for the troops had been used for other purposes
by the Queen-mother, who hated Lautrec. At the moment when
Francis I. was thinking of re-entering Italy, an internal
enemy threw France into the utmost danger. Francis had given
mortal offence to the Constable of Bourbon, one of those who
had most contributed to the victory of Marignan. Charles,
Count of Montpensier and Dauphin of Auvergne, held by virtue
of his wife, a granddaughter of Louis XI., the Duchy of
Bourbon, and the counties of Clermont, La Marche and other
domains, which made him the first noble in the kingdom. On the
death of his wife, the Queen-mother, Louise of Savoy, who had
wanted to marry the Constable and had been refused by him,
resolved to ruin him. She disputed with him this rich
inheritance and obtained from her son that the property should
be provisionally sequestered. Bourbon, exasperated, resolved
to pass over to the Emperor (1523). Half a century earlier,
revolt did not mean disloyalty. The most accomplished knights
in France, Dunois and John of Calabria, had joined the 'League
for the public weal.' ... But now it was no question of a
revolt against the king; such a thing was impossible in France
at this time. It was a conspiracy against the very existence
of France that Bourbon was plotting with foreigners. He
promised Charles V. to attack Burgundy as soon as Francis I.
had crossed the Alps, and to rouse into revolt five provinces
of which he believed himself master; the kingdom of Provence
was to be re-established in his favour, and France,
partitioned between Spain and England, would have ceased to
exist as a nation. He was soon able to enjoy the reverses of
his country."
J. Michelet,
Summary of Modern History,
chapter 6.
"Henry VIII. and Charles V. were both ready to secure the
services of the ex-Constable. He decided in favour of Charles
as the more powerful of the two. ... These secret negotiations
were carried on in the spring of 1523, while Francis I.
(having sent a sufficient force to protect his northern
frontier) was preparing to make Italy the seat of war. With
this object the king ordered a rendezvous of the army at
Lyons, in the beginning of September, and having arranged to
pass through Moulins on his way to join the forces, called
upon the Constable to meet him there and to proceed with him
to Lyons. Already vague rumours of an understanding between
the Emperor and Bourbon had reached Francis, who gave no
credence to them; but on his way M. de Brézé, Seneschal of
Normandy, attached to the Court of Louise of Savoy, sent such
precise details of the affair by two Norman gentlemen in the
Constable's service that doubt was no longer possible."
Francis accordingly entered Moulins with a considerable force,
and went straight to Bourbon, who feigned illness. The
Constable stoutly denied to the king all the charges which the
latter revealed to him, and Francis, who was strongly urged to
order his arrest, refused to do so. But a few days later, when
the king had gone forward to Lyons, Bourbon, pretending to
follow him, rode away to his strong castle of Chantelles, from
whence he wrote letters demanding the restitution of his
estates. As soon as his flight was known, Francis sent forces
to seize him; but the Constable, taking one companion with
him, made his way out of the kingdom in disguise. Escaping to
Italy, he was there placed in command of the imperial army.
C. Coignet,
Francis I. and his Times,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
Miss Pardoe,
The Court and Reign of Francis I.,
volume 1, chapters 14-19.
See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519-1555.
FRANCE: A. D. 1521.
Invasion of Navarre.
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
FRANCE: A. D. 1521-1525.
Beginning of the Protestant Reform movement.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1524.
First undertakings in the New World.
Voyages of Verrazano.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
{1191}
FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
The death of Bayard.
Second invasion of Italy by Francis I.
His defeat and capture at Pavia.
"Bonnivet, the personal enemy of Bourbon, was now entrusted
with the command of the French army. He marched without
opposition into the Milanese, and might have taken the capital
had he pushed on to its gates. Having by irresolution lost it,
he retreated to winter quarters behind the Tesino. The
operations of the English in Picardy, of the imperialists in
Champagne, and of the Spaniards near the Pyrenees, were
equally insignificant. The spring of 1524 brought on an
action, if the attack of one point can be called such, which
proved decisive for the time. Bonnivet advanced rashly beyond
the Tesino. The imperialists, commanded by four able generals,
Launoi, Pescara, Bourbon, and Sforza, succeeded in almost
cutting off his retreat. They at the same time refused
Bonnivet's offer to engage. They hoped to weaken him by
famine. The Swiss first murmured against the distress
occasioned by want of precaution. They deserted across the
river; and Bonnivet, thus abandoned, was obliged to make a
precipitate and perilous retreat. A bridge was hastily flung
across the Sessia, near Romagnano; and Bonnivet, with his best
knights and gensdarmerie, undertook to defend the passage of
the rest of the army. The imperialists, led on by Bourbon,
made a furious attack. Bonnivet was wounded, and he gave his
place to Bayard, who, never entrusted with a high command, was
always chosen for that of a forlorn hope. The brave Vandenesse
was soon killed; and Bayard himself received a gun-shot
through the reins. The gallant chevalier, feeling his wound
mortal, caused himself to be placed in a sitting posture
beneath a tree, his face to the enemy, and his sword fixed in
guise of a cross before him. The constable Bourbon, who led
the imperialists, soon came up to the dying Bayard, and
expressed his compassion. 'Weep not for me,' said the
chevalier, 'but for thyself. I die in performing my duty; thou
art betraying thine.' Nothing marks more strongly the great
rise, the sudden sacro-sanctity of the royal authority in
those days, than the general horror which the treason of
Bourbon excited. ... The fact is, that this sudden horror of
treason was owing, in a great measure, to the revived study of
the classics, in which treason to one's country is universally
mentioned as an impiety and a crime of the deepest dye.
Feudality, with all its oaths, had no such horror of treason.
... Bonnivet had evacuated Italy after this defeat at
Romagnano. Bourbon's animosity stimulated him to push his
advantage. He urged the emperor to invade France, and
recommended the Bourbonnais and his own patrimonial provinces
as those most advisable to invade. Bourbon wanted to raise his
friends in insurrection against Francis; but Charles descried
selfishness in this scheme of Bourbon, and directed Pescara to
march with the constable into the south of France and lay
siege to Marseilles. ... Marseilles made an obstinate
resistance," and the siege was ineffectual. "Francis, in the
meantime, alarmed by the invasion, had assembled an army. He
burned to employ it, and avenge the late affront. The king of
England, occupied with the Scotch, gave him respite in the
north; and he resolved to employ this by marching, late as the
season was, into Italy. His generals, who by this time were
sick of warring beyond the Alps, opposed the design; but not
even the death of his queen, Claude, could stop Francis. He
passed Mount Cenis; marched upon Milan, whose population was
spiritless and broken by the plague, and took it without
resistance. It was then mooted whether Lodi or Pavia should be
besieged. The latter, imprudently, as it is said, was
preferred. It was at this time that Pope Clement VII., of the
house of Medici, who had lately succeeded Adrian, made the
most zealous efforts to restore peace between the monarchies.
He found Charles and his generals arrogant and unwilling to
treat. The French, said they, must on no account be allowed a
footing in Italy. Clement, impelled by pique towards the
emperor, or generosity to Francis, at once abandoned the
prudent policy of his predecessors, and formed a league with
the French king, to whom, after all, he brought no accession
of force. This step proved afterwards fatal to the city of
Rome. The siege of Pavia was formed about the middle of
October [1524]. Antonio de Leyva, an experienced officer,
supported by veteran troops, commanded in the town. The
fortifications were strong, and were likely to hold for a
considerable time. By the month of January the French had made
no progress; and the impatient Francis despatched a
considerable portion of his army for the invasion of Naples,
hearing that the country was drained of troops. This was a
gross blunder, which Pescara observing, forbore to send any
force to oppose the expedition. He knew that the fate of Italy
would be decided before Pavia. Bourbon, in the mean time,
disgusted with the jealousies and tardiness of the imperial
generals, employed the winter in raising an army of
lansquenets on his own account. From the duke of Savoy he
procured funds; and early in the year 1525 the constable
joined Pescara at Lodi with a fresh army of 12,000
mercenaries. They had, besides, some 7,000 foot, and not more
than 1,500 horse. With these they marched to the relief of
Pavia. Francis had a force to oppose to them, not only
inferior in numbers, but so harassed with a winter's siege,
that all the French generals of experience counselled a
retreat. Bonnivet and his young troop of courtiers were for
fighting; and the monarch hearkened to them. Pavia, to the
north of the river, was covered in great part by the chateau
and walled park of Mirabel. Adjoining this, and on a rising
ground, was the French camp, extending to the Tesino. Through
the camp, or through the park, lay the only ways by which the
imperialists could reach Pavia. The camp was strongly
entrenched and defended by artillery, except on the side of
the park of Mirabel, with which it communicated." On the night
of February 23, the imperialists made a breach in the park
wall, through which they pressed next morning, but were driven
back with heavy loss. "This was victory enough, could the
French king have been contented with it. But the impatient
Francis no sooner beheld his enemies in rout, than he was
eager to chase them in person, and complete the victory with
his good sword. He rushed forth from his entrenchments at the
head of his gensdarmerie, flinging himself between the enemy
and his own artillery, which was thus masked and rendered
useless. The imperialists rallied as soon as they found
themselves safe from the fire of the cannon," and the French
were overwhelmed. "The king ... behind a heap of slain,
defended himself valiantly; so beaten and shattered, so
begrimed with blood and dust, as to be scarcely
distinguishable, notwithstanding his conspicuous armour. He
had received several wounds, one in the forehead; and his
horse, struck with a ball in the head, reared, fell back, and
crushed him with his weight: still Francis rose, and laid
prostrate several of the enemies that rushed upon him." But
presently he was recognized and was persuaded to surrender his
sword to Lannoi, the viceroy of Naples. "Such was the signal
defeat that put an end to all French conquests and claims in
Italy."
E. E. Crowe,
History of France,
volume 1, chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 4 (volume 2).
J. S. Brewer,
Reign of Henry VIII.,
chapter 21 (volume 2).
H. G. Smith,
Romance of History,
chapter 6.
{1192}
FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.
The captivity of Francis I. and his deliberate perfidy in the
Treaty of Madrid.
The captive king of France was lodged in the castle at
Pizzighitone. "Instead of bearing his captivity with calmness
and fortitude, he chafed and fretted under the loss of his
wonted pleasures; at one moment he called for death to end his
woes, while at another he was ready to sign disastrous terms
of peace, meaning to break faith so soon as ever he might be
free again. ... France, at first stupefied by the mishap, soon
began to recover hope. The Regent, for all her vices and
faults, was proud and strong; she gathered what force she
could at Lyons, and looked round for help. ... Not only were
there anxieties at home, but the frontiers were also
threatened. On the side of Germany a popular movement ['the
Peasant War'], closely connected with the religious excitement
of the time, pushed a fierce and cruel rabble into Lorraine,
whence they proposed to enter France. But they were met by the
Duke of Guise and the Count of Vaudemont, his brother, at the
head of the garrisons of Burgundy and Champagne, and were
easily dispersed. It was thought that during these troubles
Lannoy would march his army, flushed with victory, from the Po
to the Rhone. ... But Lannoy had no money to pay his men, and
could not undertake so large a venture. Meanwhile negotiations
began between Charles V. and the King; the Emperor demanding,
as ransom, that Bourbon should be invested with Provence and
Dauphiny, joined to his own lands in Auvergne, and should
receive the title of king; and secondly that the Duchy of
Burgundy should be given over to the Emperor as the inheritor
of the lands and rights of Charles the Bold. But the King of
France would not listen for a moment. And now the King of
England and most of the Italian states, alarmed at the great
power of the Emperor, began to change sides. Henry VIII. came
first. He signed a treaty of neutrality with the Regent, in
which it was agreed that not even for the sake of the King's
deliverance should any part of France be torn from her. The
Italians joined in a league to restore the King to liberty,
and to secure the independence of Italy: and Turkey was called
on for help. ... The Emperor now felt that Francis was not in
secure keeping at Pizzighitone. ... He therefore gave orders
that Francis should at once be removed to Spain." The captive
king "was set ashore at Valencia, and received with wonderful
welcome: dances, festivals, entertainments of every kind,
served to relieve his captivity; it was like a restoration to
life! But this did not suit the views of the Emperor, who
wished to weary the King into giving up all thought of
resistance: he trusted to his impatient and frivolous
character; his mistake, as he found to his cost, lay in
thinking that a man of such character would keep his word. He
therefore had him removed from Valencia to Madrid, where he
was kept in close and galling confinement, in a high, dreary
chamber, where he could not even see out of the windows. This
had the desired effect. The King talked of abdicating; he fell
ill of ennui, and was like to die: but at last he could hold
out no longer, and abandoning all thought of honourable
action, agreed to shameful terms, consoling himself with a
private protest against the validity of the deed, as having

been done under compulsion."
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 2, book 2, chapter 5.
"By the Treaty of Madrid, signed January 14th, 1526, Francis
'restored' to the Emperor the Duchy of Burgundy, the county of
Charolais, and some other smaller fiefs, without reservation
of any feudal suzerainty, which was also abandoned with regard
to the counties of Flanders and Artois, the Emperor, however,
resigning the towns on the Somme, which had been held by
Charles the Bold. The French King also renounced his claims to
the kingdom of Naples, the Duchy of Milan, the county of Asti,
and the city of Genoa. He contracted an offensive and
defensive alliance with Charles, undertaking to attend him
with an army when he should repair to Rome to receive the
Imperial crown, and to accompany him in person whenever he
should march against the Turks or heretics. He withdrew his
protection from the King of Navarre, the Duke of Gelderland,
and the La Marcks; took upon himself the Emperor's debt to
England, and agreed to give his two eldest sons as hostages
for the execution of the treaty. Instead, however, of the
independent kingdom which Bourbon had expected, all that was
stipulated in his favour was a free pardon for him and his
adherents, and their restoration in their forfeited domains.
... The provisions of the above treaty Francis promised to
execute on the word and honour of a king, and by an oath sworn
with his hand upon the holy Gospels: yet only a few hours
before he was to sign this solemn act, he had called his
plenipotentiaries, together with some French nobles,
secretaries, and notaries, into his chamber, where, after
exacting from them an oath of secrecy, he entered into a long
discourse touching the Emperor's harshness towards him, and
signed a protest, declaring that, as the treaty he was about
to enter into had been extorted from him by force, it was null
and void from the beginning, and that he never intended to
execute it: thus, as a French writer has observed,
establishing by an authentic notarial act that he was going to
commit a perjury." Treaties have often been shamefully
violated, yet it would perhaps be impossible to parallel this
gross and deliberate perjury. In March, Francis was conducted
to the Spanish frontier, where, on a boat in mid-stream of the
Bidassoa, "he was exchanged for his two sons, Francis and
Henry, who were to remain in Spain, as hostages for the
execution of the treaty. The tears started to his eyes as he
embraced his children, but he consigned them without remorse
to a long and dreary exile." As speedily as possible after
regaining his liberty, Francis assembled the states of his
kingdom and procured from them a decision "that the King could
not alienate the patrimony of France, and that the oath which he
had taken in his captivity did not abrogate the still more
solemn one which had been administered to him at his
coronation." After which he deemed himself discharged from the
obligations of his treaty, and had no thought of surrendering
himself again a prisoner, as he was honourably bound to do.
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
A. B. Cochrane,
Francis I. in Captivity.
W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 4 (volume 2).
C. Coignet,
Francis I. and his Times,
chapters 5-8.
{1193}
FRANCE: A. D. 1526-1527.
Holy League with Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.
Bourbon's attack on Rome.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, and 1527.
FRANCE: A. D. 1527-1529.
New alliance against Charles V.
Early successes in Lombardy.
Disaster at Naples.
Genoa and all possessions in Italy lost.
The humiliating Peace of Cambrai.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
FRANCE: A. D. 1529-1535.
Persecution of the Protestant Reformers and spread of their
doctrines.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
FRANCE: A. D. 1531.
Alliance with the Protestant princes of the German League of
Smalkalde.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
FRANCE: A. D. 1532.
Final reunion of Brittany with the crown.
See BRITTANY: A. D. 1532.
FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
Treaty with the Pope.
Marriage of Prince Henry with Catherine de' Medici.
Renewed war with Charles V.
Alliance with the Turks.
Victory at Cerisoles.
Treaty of Crespy.
Increased persecution of Protestants.
Massacre of Waldenses.
War with England.
Death of Francis I.
"The 'ladies' peace' ... lasted up to 1536; incessantly
troubled, however, by far from pacific symptoms, proceedings
and preparations. In October, 1532, Francis I. had, at Calais,
an interview with Henry VIII., at which they contracted a
private alliance, and undertook 'to raise between them an army
of 80,000 men to resist the Turk.'" But when, in 1535, Charles
V. attacked the seat of the Barbary pirates, and took Tunis,
Francis "entered into negotiations with Soliman II., and
concluded a friendly treaty with him against what was called
'the common enemy.' Francis had been for some time preparing
to resume his projects of conquest in Italy; he had effected
an interview at Marseilles, in October, 1533, with Pope
Clement VII., who was almost at the point of death, and it was
there that the marriage of Prince Henry of France with
Catherine de' Medici [daughter of Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, and
granddaughter of Piero de' Medici] was settled. Astonishment was
expressed that the pope's niece had but a very moderate dowry.
'You don't see, then,' said Clement VII.'s ambassador, 'that
she brings France three jewels of great price, Genoa, Milan
and Naples?' When this language was reported at the court of
Charles V., it caused great irritation there. In 1536 all
these combustibles of war exploded; in the month of February,
a French army entered Piedmont, and occupied Turin; and, in
the month of July, Charles V. in person entered Provence at
the head of 50,000 men. Anne de Montmorency, having received
orders to defend southern France, began by laying it waste in
order that the enemy might not be able to live in it. ...
Montmorency made up his mind to defend, on the whole coast of
Provence, only Marseilles and Aries; he pulled down the
ramparts of the other towns, which were left exposed to the
enemy. For two months Charles V. prosecuted this campaign
without a fight, marching through the whole of Provence an
army which fatigue, shortness of provisions, sickness, and
ambuscades were decimating ingloriously. At last he decided
upon retreating. ... On returning from his sorry expedition,
Charles V. learned that those of his lieutenants whom he had
charged with the conduct of a similar invasion in the north of
France, in Picardy, had met with no greater success than he
himself in Provence." A truce for three months was soon
afterwards arranged, and in June, 1538, through the mediation
of Pope Paul III., a treaty was signed at Nice which extended
the truce to ten years. Next month the two sovereigns met at
Aigues-Mortes and exchanged many assurances of friendship."
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 28 (volume 4).
In August, 1539, a revolt at Ghent "called Charles V. into
Flanders; he was then in Spain, and his shortest route was
through France. He requested permission to cross the kingdom,
and obtained it, after having promised the Constable
Montmorency that he would give the investiture of Milan to the
second son of the King. His sojourn in France was a time of
expensive fêtes, and cost the treasury four millions; yet, in
the midst of his pleasures, the Emperor was not without
uneasiness. ... Francis, however, respected the rights of
hospitality; but Charles did not give to his son the
investiture of Milan. The King, indignant, exiled the
constable for having trusted the word of the Emperor without
exacting his signature, and avenged himself by strengthening
his alliance with the Turks, the most formidable enemies of
the empire. ... The hatred of the two monarchs was carried to
its height by these last events; they mutually outraged each
other by injurious libels, and submitted their differences to
the Pope. Paul III. refused to decide between them, and they
again took up arms [1542]. The King invaded Luxembourg, and
the Dauphin Rousillon; and while a third army in concert with
the Mussulmans besieged Nice [1542], the last asylum of the
dukes of Savoy, by land, the terrible Barbarossa, admiral of
Soliman, attacked it by sea. The town was taken, the castle
alone resisted, and the siege of it was raised. Barbarossa
consoled himself for this check by ravaging the coasts of
Italy, where he made 10,000 captives. The horror which he
inspired recoiled on Francis I., his ally, whose name became
odious in Italy and Germany. He was declared the enemy of the
empire, and the Diet raised against him an army of 24,000 men,
at the head of which Charles V. penetrated into Champagne,
while Henry VIII., coalescing with the Emperor, attacked
Picardy with 10,000 English. The battle of Cerisoles, a
complete victory, gained during the same year [April 14,1544],
in Piedmont, by Francis of Bourbon, Duke d'Enghien, against
Gast, general of the Imperial troops, did not stop this double
and formidable invasion. Charles V. advanced almost to
Château-Thierry. But discord reigned in his army; he ran short
of provisions, and could easily have been surrounded; he then
again promised Milan to the Duke of Orleans, the second son of
the King. This promise irritated the Dauphin Henry, who was
afraid to see his brother become the head of a house as
dangerous for France as had been that of Burgundy; he wished
to reject the offer of the Emperor and to cut off his retreat.
A rivalry among women, it is said, saved Charles V. ...
{1194}
The war was terminated almost immediately afterwards [1544] by
the treaty of Crespy in Valois. The Emperor promised his
daughter to the Duke of Orleans, with the Low Countries and
Franche-Comté, or one of his nieces, with Milan. Francis
restored to the Duke of Savoy the greater part of the places
that he held in Piedmont; he renounced all ulterior
pretensions to the kingdom of Naples, the duchy of Milan, and
likewise to the sovereignty of Flanders and Artois; Charles,
on his part, gave up the duchy of Burgundy. This treaty put an
end to the rivalry of the two sovereigns, which had
ensanguined Europe for 25 years. The death of the Duke of
Orleans freed the Emperor from dispossessing himself of Milan
or the Low Countries; he refused all compensation to the King,
but the peace was not broken. Francis I. profited by it to
redouble his severity with regard to the Protestants. A
population of many thousands of Waldenses, an unfortunate
remnant from the religious persecutions of the 13th century,
dwelt upon the confines of Provence, and the County Venaissin,
and a short time back had entered into communion with the
Calvinists. The King permitted John Mesnier, Baron d'Oppède,
first president of the Parliament of Aix, to execute [1546] a
sentence delivered against them five years previously by the
Parliament. John d'Oppède himself directed this frightful
execution. Twenty-two towns or villages were burned and
sacked; the inhabitants, surprised during the night, were
pursued among the rocks by the glare of the flames which
devoured their houses. The men perished by executions, but the
women were delivered over to terrible violences. At Cabrières,
the principal town of the canton, 700 men were murdered in
cold blood, and all the women were burnt; lastly, according to
the tenor of the sentence, the houses were rased, the woods cut
down, the trees in the gardens torn up, and in a short time
this country, so fertile and so thickly peopled, became a
desert and a waste. This dreadful massacre was one of the
principal causes of the religious wars which desolated France
for so long a time. ... The war continued between [Henry
VIII.] and Francis I. The English had taken Boulogne, and a
French fleet ravaged the coasts of England, after taking
possession of the Isle of Wight [1545]. Hostilities were
terminated by the treaty of Guines [1547], which the two kings
signed on the edge of their graves, and it was arranged that
Boulogne should be restored for the sum of 2,000,000 of gold
crowns. ... Henry VIII. and Francis I. died in the same year
[1547]."
E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, pages 363-367.
ALSO IN:
W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 6-9 (volume 2).
J. A. Froude,
History of England,
chapters 20-23 (volume 4).
FRANCE: A. D. 1534-1535.
The voyages of Jacques Cartier and the taking
possession of Canada.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
FRANCE: A. D. 1534-1560.
Persecution of the Protestants.
Their organization.
Their numbers.
"Francis I. had long shrunk from persecution, but having once
begun he showed no further hesitation. During the remainder of
his reign and the whole of that of his son Henry II.
(1534-1559) the cruelty of the sufferings inflicted on the
Reformers increased with the number of the victims. At first
they were strangled and burnt, then burnt alive, then hung in
chains to roast over a slow fire. ... The Edict of
Chateaubriand (1551), taking away all right of appeal from
those convicted of heresy, was followed by an attempt to
introduce an Inquisition on the model of that of Spain, and
when this failed owing to the opposition of the lawyers, the
Edict of Compiègne (1557) denounced capital punishment against
all who in public or private professed any heterodox doctrine. It
is a commonplace that persecution avails nothing against the
truth--that the true Church springs from the blood of martyrs.
Yet the same cause which triumphed over persecution in France
was crushed by it in Spain and in the Walloon Netherlands. Was
it therefore not the truth? The fact would rather seem to be,
that there is no creed, no sect which cannot be extirpated by
force. But that it may prevail, persecution must be without
respect of persons, universal, continuous, protracted. Not one
of these conditions was fulfilled in France. The opinions of the
greater nobles and princes, and of those who were their
immediate followers, were not too narrowly scanned, nor was
the persecution equally severe at all times and in all places.
Some governors and judges and not a few of the higher clergy
inclined to toleration. ... The cheerful constancy of the
French martyrs was admirable. Men, women and children walked
to execution singing the psalms of Marot and the Song of
Simeon. This boldness confounded their enemies. Hawkers
distributed in every part of the country the books issued from
the press of Geneva and which it was a capital offence even to
possess. Preachers taught openly in the streets and
market-places. ... The increasing numbers of their converts
and the high position of some among them gave confidence to
the Protestants. Delegates from the reformed congregations of
France were on their way to Paris to take part in the
deliberations of the first national Synod on the very day
(April 2, 1559) when the peace of Cateau Cambresis was signed,
a peace which was to be the prelude to a vigorous and
concerted effort to root out heresy on the part of the kings
of France and Spain. The object of the meeting was twofold:
first to draw up a detailed profession of faith, which was
submitted to Calvin--there was, he said, little to add, less
to correct--secondly to determine the 'ecclesiastical
discipline' of the new Church. The ministers were to be chosen
by the elders and deacons, but approved by the whole
congregation. The affairs of each congregation were placed
under the control of the Consistory, a court composed of the
pastors, elders and deacons; more important matters were
reserved for the decision of the provincial 'colloques' or
synods, which were to meet twice a year, and in which each
church was represented by its pastor and at least one elder.
Above all was the national Synod also composed of the clergy
and of representative laymen. This organisation was thoroughly
representative and popular, the elected delegates of the
congregations, the elders and deacons, preponderated in all
the governing bodies, and all ministers and churches were
declared equal. The Reformed churches, which, although most
numerous in the South, spread over almost the whole country,
are said at this time to have counted some 400,000 members
(1559). These were of almost all classes, except perhaps the
lowest, although even among the peasantry there were some
martyrs for the faith."
{1195}
On the accession of Charles IX., in 1560, "a quarter of the
inhabitants of France were, it was said, included in the 2,500
reformed congregations. This is certainly an exaggeration, but
it is probable that the number of the Protestants was never
greater than during the first years of the reign of Charles
IX. ... The most probable estimate is that at the beginning of
the wars of religion the Huguenots with women and children
amounted to some 1,500,000 souls out of a population of
between fifteen and twenty millions. But in this minority were
included about one-fourth of the lesser nobility, the country
gentlemen, and a smaller proportion of the great nobles, the
majority of the better sort of townspeople in many of the most
important towns, such as Caen, Dieppe, Havre, Nantes, La
Rochelle, Nimes, Montpellier, Montauban, Châlons, Mâcon,
Lyons, Valence, Limoges and Grenoble, and an important
minority in other places, such as Rouen, Orleans, Bordeaux and
Toulouse. The Protestants were most numerous in the
South-west, in Poitou, in the Marche, Limousin, Angoumois and
Perigord, because in those districts, which were the seats of
long-established and flourishing manufactures, the middle
classes were most prosperous, intelligent and educated. It is
doubtful whether the Catholics were not in a large majority,
even where the superior position, intelligence and vigour of
the Huguenots gave them the upper hand. Only in some parts of
the South-west and of Dauphiny do the bulk of the population
appear to have been decidedly hostile to the old religion.
During the course of the Civil War the Protestants came to be
more and more concentrated in certain parts of the country, as
for instance between the Garonne and the Loire."
P. F. Willert,
Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots in France,
chapter 1.
FRANCE: A. D. 1541-1543.
Jacques Cartier's last explorations in Canada.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.
FRANCE: A. D. 1541-1564.
The rise and influence of Calvinism.
See GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.
FRANCE: A. D. 1547.
Accession of King Henry II.
FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
The rise of the Guises.
Alliance with the German Protestants.
Wars with the emperor, and with Spain and England.
Acquisition of Les Trois Evêchés, and of Calais.
Unsuccessful campaign in Italy.
Battle and siege of St. Quentin.
Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.
"The son of Francis I., who in 1547 ascended the throne under
the title of Henry II., was told by his dying father to beware
of the Guises. ... The Guises were a branch of the ducal House
of Lorraine, which, although the dukedom was a fief of the
German empire, had long stood in intimate relations with the
court and nobility of France. The founder of the family was
Claude, a younger son of René II., Duke of Lorraine, who,
being naturalised in France in 1505, rendered himself
conspicuous in the wars of Francis I., and was created first
Duke of Guise. He died in 1550, leaving five daughters and six
sons. His eldest daughter, Mary, became the wife of James V.
of Scotland, and mother of Mary Queen of Scots. The sons were
all men of extraordinary energy and ambition, and their united
influence was, for a number of years, more than a match for
that of the crown. Francis, second Duke of Guise, acquired,
while still a young man, extraordinary renown as a military
commander, by carrying out certain ambitious designs of France
on a neighbouring territory. ... As is well known, French
statesmen have for many centuries cherished the idea that the
natural boundary of France on the east is the Rhine, from its
mouth to its source, and thence along the crest of the Alps to
the Mediterranean. ... To begin the realisation of the idea,
advantage was taken of the war which broke out between the
Emperor Charles V. and his Protestant subjects in North
Germany [see GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552]. Although the
Protestants of France were persecuted to the death, Henry II.,
with furtively ambitious designs, offered to defend the
Protestants of Germany against their own emperor; and entered
into an alliance in 1551 with Maurice of Saxony and other
princes, undertaking to send an army to their aid. As bases of
his operations, it was agreed that he might take temporary
military possession of Toul, Verdun, and Metz, three
bishoprics [forming a district called the Trois Évêchés], each
with a portion of territory lying within the area of the duchy
of Lorraine, but held as distinct fiefs of the German empire--
such, in fact, being fragments of Lothair's kingdom, which
fell to Germany, and had in no shape been incorporated with
France. It was stipulated that, in occupying these places, the
French were not to interfere with their old connection with
the empire. The confidence reposed in the French was
grievously abused. All the stipulations went for nothing. In
1552, French troops took possession of Toul and Verdun, also
of Nancy, the capital of Lorraine, treating the duchy,
generally, as a conquered country. Seeing this, Metz shut her
gates and trusted to her fortifications. To procure an
entrance and secure possession, there was a resort to
stratagems which afford a startling illustration of the tricks
that French nobles at that time could be guilty of in order to
gain their ends. The French commander, the Constable
Montmorency, begged to be allowed to pass through the town
with a few attendants, while his army made a wide circuit on
its route. The too credulous custodiers of the city opened the
gates, and, to their dismay, the whole French forces rushed
in, and began to rule in true despotic fashion. ... Thus was
Metz secured for France in a way which modern Frenchmen, we
should imagine, can hardly think of without shame. Germany,
however, did not relinquish this important fortress without a
struggle. Furious at its loss, the Emperor Charles V.
proceeded to besiege it with a large army. The defence was
undertaken by the Duke of Guise, assisted by a body of French
nobility. After an investment of four months, and a loss of
30,000 men, Charles was forced to raise the siege, January 1,
1553, all his attempts at the capture of the place being
effectually baffled."
W. Chambers,
France: its History and Revolutions,
chapter 6.
{1196}
"The war continued during the two following years; but both
parties were now growing weary of a contest in which neither
achieved any decisive superiority"; and the emperor, having
negotiated an armistice, resigned all his crowns to his son,
Philip II., and his brother Ferdinand (October, 1555).
"Meantime Pope Paul IV., who detested the Spaniards and longed
for the complete subversion of their power in the Peninsula,
entered into a league with the French king against Philip;
Francis of Guise was encouraged in his favorite project of
effecting a restoration of the crown of Naples to his own
family, as the descendants of René of Anjou; and in December,
1556, an army of 16,000 men, commanded by the Duke of Guise,
crossed the Alps, and, marching direct to Rome, prepared to
attack the Spanish viceroy of Naples, the celebrated Duke of
Alva. In April, 1557, Guise advanced into the Abruzzi, and
besieged Civitella; but here he encountered a determined
resistance, and, after sacrificing a great part of his troops,
found it necessary to abandon the attempt. He retreated toward
Rome, closely pursued by the Duke of Alva; and the result was
that the expedition totally failed. Before his army could
recover from the fatigues and losses of their fruitless
campaign, the French general was suddenly recalled by a
dispatch containing tidings of urgent importance from the
north of France. The Spanish army in the Netherlands,
commanded by the Duke of Savoy, having been joined by a body
of English auxiliaries under the Earl of Pembroke, had invaded
France and laid siege to St. Quentin. This place was badly
fortified, and defended by a feeble garrison under the Admiral
de Coligny. Montmorency advanced with the main army to
re-enforce it, and on the 10th of August rashly attacked the
Spaniards, who outnumbered his own troops in the proportion of
more than two to one, and inflicted on him a fatal and
irretrievable defeat. The loss of the French amounted,
according to most accounts, to 4,000 slain in the field, while
at least an equal number remained prisoners, including the
Constable himself. The road to Paris lay open to the victors.
... The Duke of Savoy was eager to advance; but the cautious
Philip, happily for France, rejected his advice, and ordered
him to press the siege of St. Quentin. That town made a
desperate resistance for more than a fortnight longer, and was
captured by storm on the 27th of August [1557]. ... Philip
took possession of a few other neighbouring fortresses, but
attempted no serious movement in prosecution of his victory.
... The Duke of Guise arrived from Italy early in October, to
the great joy of the king and the nation, and was immediately
created lieutenant-general of the kingdom, with powers of
almost unlimited extent. Be applied himself, with his utmost
ability and perseverance, to repair the late disasters; and
with such success, that in less than two months he was enabled
to assemble a fresh and well-appointed army at Compiègne.
Resolving to strike a vigorous blow before the enemy could
reappear in the field, he detached a division of his army to
make a feint in the direction of Luxemburg; and, rapidly
marching westward with the remainder, presented himself on the
1st of January, 1558, before the walls of Calais. ... The
French attack was a complete surprise; the two advanced forts
commanding the approaches to the town were bombarded, and
surrendered on the 3d of January; three days later the castle
was carried by assault; and on the 8th, the governor, Lord
Wentworth, was forced to capitulate. ... Guines, no longer
tenable after the fall of Calais, shared the same fate on the
21st of January; and thus, within the short space of three
weeks, were the last remnants of her ancient dominion on the
Continent snatched from the grasp of England--possessions
which she had held for upward of 200 years. ... This
remarkable exploit, so flattering to the national pride,
created universal enthusiasm in France, and carried to the
highest pitch the reputation and popularity of Guise. From
this moment his influence became paramount; and the marriage
of the dauphin to the Queen of Scots, which was solemnised on
the 24th of April, 1558, seemed to exalt the house of Lorraine
to a still more towering pinnacle of greatness. It was
stipulated by a secret article of the marriage-contract that
the sovereignty of Scotland should be transferred to France,
and that the two crowns should remain united forever, in case
of the decease of Mary without issue. Toward the end of the
year negotiations were opened with a view to peace." They were
interrupted, however, in November, 1558, by the death of Queen
Mary of England, wife of Philip of Spain. "When the congress
reassembled at Le Cateau-Cambresis, in February, 1559, the
Spanish ministers no longer maintained the interests of
England; and Elizabeth, thus abandoned, agreed to an
arrangement which virtually ceded Calais to France, though
with such nominal qualifications as satisfied the
sensitiveness of the national honour. Calais was to be
restored to the English at the end of eight years, with a
penalty, in case of failure, of 500,000 crowns. At the same
time, if any hostile proceedings should take place on the part
of England against France within the period specified, the queen
was to forego all claim to the fulfillment of the article."
The treaty between France and England was signed April 2,
1559, and that between France and Spain the following day. By
the latter, "the two monarchs mutually restored their
conquests in Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Picardy, and Artois;
France abandoned Savoy and Piedmont, with the exception of
Turin and four other fortresses [restoring Philibert Emanuel,
Duke of Savoy, to his dominions--see SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D.
1559-1580]; she evacuated Tuscany, Corsica, and Montferrat,
and yielded up no less than 189 towns or fortresses in various
parts of Europe. By way of compensation, Henry preserved the
district of the 'Trois Évêchés'--Toul, Metz, and Verdun--and
made the all-important acquisition of Calais. This
pacification was sealed, according to custom, by
marriages"--Henry's daughter Elizabeth to Philip of Spain, and
his sister Marguerite to the Duke of Savoy. In a tournament, at
Paris, which celebrated these marriages, Henry received an
injury from the lance of Montgomery, captain of his Scottish
guards, which caused his death eleven days afterwards--July
10, 1559.
W. H. Jervis,
Student's History of France,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 1, chapters 2-3 (volume l).
Lady Jackson,
The Court of France in the 16th Century,
volume 2, chapters 9-20.
L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
16th and 17th Centuries, chapter 6 (volume 1).
FRANCE: A. D. 1548.
Marriage of Antoine de Bourbon to Jeanne d'Albret, heiress of
Navarre.
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.
FRANCE: A. D. 1552.
Alliance with the Turks.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1528-1570.
FRANCE: A. D. 1554-1565.
Huguenot attempts at colonization in Brazil and in Florida,
and their fate.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563; 1564-1565;
1565, and 1567-1568.
FRANCE: A. D. 1558-1559.
Aid given to revolt in Corsica.
See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.
FRANCE: A. D. 1559.
Accession of King Francis. II.
{1197}
FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
Francis II., Charles IX., the Guises and Catharine de' Medici.
The Conspiracy of Amboise.
Rapid spread and organization of Protestantism.
Rise of the Huguenot party.
Disputed origin of its name.
Henry II. "had been married from political motives to the
niece of Clement VII., Catharine de Medici. This ambitious
woman came to France conscious that the marriage was a
political one, mentally a stranger to her husband; and such
she always remained. This placed her from the first in a false
position. The King was influenced by anyone rather than by his
wife; and a by no means charming mistress, Diana of Poitiers,
played her part by the side of and above the Queen. ...
Immediately after the death of her husband, in 1559, she
[Catharine] greedily grasped at power. The young King, Francis
II., was of age when he entered his fourteenth year. There
could therefore be no legal regency, though there might be an
actual one, for a weakly monarch of sixteen was still
incompetent to govern. But she was thwarted in her first grasp
at power. Under Francis I., a family [the Guises--see above]
previously unknown in French history had begun to play a
prominent part. ... The brothers succeeded in bringing about a
political marriage which promised to throw the King, who was
mentally a child, entirely into their hands. Their sister Mary
had been married to James V. of Scotland, whose crown was then
rather an insignificant one, but was now beginning to gain
importance. The issue of this marriage was a charming girl,
who was destined for the King's wife. She was betrothed to him
without his consent when still a child. The young Queen was
Mary Stuart. Her misfortunes, her beauty, and her connection
with European history, have made her a historical personage,
more conspicuous indeed for what she suffered than for what
she did; her real importance is not commensurate with the
position she occupies. This, then, was the position of the
brothers Guise at court. The King was the husband of their
niece; both were children in age and mind, and therefore
doubly required guidance. The brothers, Francis and Charles,
had the government entirely in their hands; the Duke managed
the army, the Cardinal the finances and foreign affairs. Two
such leaders were the mayors of the palace. The whole
constitution of the court reminds us of the 'rois fainéants'
and the office of major-domo under the Carlovingians. Thus,
just when Catharine was about to take advantage of a
favourable moment, she saw herself once more eclipsed and
thrust aside, and that by insolent upstarts of whom one thing
only was certain, that they possessed unusual talents, and
that their consciences were elastic in the choice of means. It
was not only from Catharine that the supremacy of the Guises
met with violent opposition, but also from Protestantism, the
importance of which was greatly increasing in France. ... In
the time of Henry II., in spite of all the edicts and
executions, Protestantism had made great progress. ... In the
spring of 1559, interdicted Protestantism had secretly
reviewed its congregations, and at the first national synod
drawn up a confession of faith and a constitution for the new
Church. Preachers and elders had appeared from every part of
France, and their eighty articles of 28th May, 1559, have
become the code of laws of French Protestantism. The
Calvinistic principle of the Congregational Church, with
choice of its own minister, deacons, and elders; a consistory
which maintained strict discipline in matters of faith and
morals ... was established upon French soil, and was
afterwards publicly accepted by the whole party. The more
adherents this party gained in the upper circles, the bolder
was its attitude; there was, indeed, no end to the executions,
or to the edicts against heresy, but a spirit of opposition,
previously unknown, had gradually gained ground. Prisoners
were set free, the condemned were rescued from the hands of
the executioners on the way to the scaffold, and a plan was
devised among the numerous fugitives in foreign lands for
producing a turn in the course of events by violent means. La
Rénaudie, a reformed nobleman from Perigord, who had sworn
vengeance on the Guises for the execution of his brother, had,
with a number of other persons of his own way of thinking,
formed a plan for attacking the Guises, carrying off the King,
and placing him under the guardianship of the Bourbon agnates.
... The project was betrayed; the Guises succeeded in placing
the King in security in the Castle of Amboise; a number of the
conspirators were seized, another troop overpowered and
dispersed on their attack upon the castle, on the 17th of
March, 1560; some were killed, some taken prisoners and at
once executed. It was then discovered, or pretended, that the
youngest of the Bourbon princes [see BOURBON, HOUSE OF], Louis
of Condé, was implicated in the conspiracy [known as the
Conspiracy or Tumult of Amboise]. ... The Guises now ventured,
in contempt of French historical traditions, to imprison this
prince of the blood, this agnate of the reigning house; to
summon him before an arbitrary tribunal of partisans, and to
condemn him to death. ... This affair kept all France in
suspense. All the nobles, although strongly infected with
Huguenot ideas, were on Condé's side; even those who condemned
his religious opinions made his cause their own. They justly
thought that if he fell none of them would be safe. In the
midst of this ferment, destiny interposed. On the 5th of
December, 1560, Francis II. died suddenly, and a complete
change took place. His death put an end to a net-work of
intrigues, which aimed at knocking the rebellion, political
and religious, on the head. ... During this confusion one
individual had been watching the course of events with the
eagerness of a beast ready to seize on its prey. Catharine of
Medici was convinced that the time of her dominion had at
length arrived. ... Francis II. was scarcely dead when she
seized upon the person and the power of Charles IX. He was a
boy of ten years old, not more promising than his eldest
brother, sickly and weakly like all the sons of Henry II.,
more attached to his mother than the others, and he had been
neglected by the Guises. ... One of her first acts was to
liberate Condé; this was a decided step towards reconciliation
with the Bourbons and the Protestants. The whole situation was
all at once changed. The court was ruled by Catharine; her
feverish thirst for power was satisfied. The Guises and their
adherents were, indeed, permitted to remain in their offices
and posts of honour, in order not fatally to offend them; but
their supremacy was destroyed, and the new power was based
upon the Queen's understanding with the heads of the Huguenot
party."
L. Häusser,
The Period of the Reformation, 1517 to 1648,
chapter 25.
{1198}
"The recent commotion had disclosed the existence of a body of
malcontents, in part religious, in part also political,
scattered over the whole kingdom and of unascertained numbers.
To its adherents the name of Huguenots was now for the first
time given. What the origin of this celebrated appellation
was, it is now perhaps impossible to discover. ... It has been
traced back to the name of the Eidgenossen or 'confederates,'
under which the party of freedom figured in Geneva when the
authority of the bishop and duke was overthrown; or to the
'Roy Huguet,' or 'Huguon,' a hobgoblin supposed to haunt the
vicinity of Tours, to whom the superstitious attributed the
nocturnal assemblies of the Protestants; or to the gate 'du
roy Huguon' of the same city, near which those gatherings were
wont to be made. Some of their enemies maintained the former
existence of a diminutive coin known as a 'huguenot,' and
asserted that the appellation, as applied to the reformed,
arose from their 'not being worth a huguenot,' or farthing;
And some of their friends, with equal confidence and no less
improbability, declared that it was invented because the
adherents of the house of Guise secretly put forward claims
upon the crown of France in behalf of that house as descended
from Charlemagne, whereas the Protestants loyally upheld the
rights of the Valois sprung from Hugh Capet. In the diversity
of contradictory statements, we may perhaps be excused if we
suspend our judgment. ... Not a week had passed after the
conspiracy of Amboise before the word was in everybody's
mouth. Few knew or cared whence it arose. A powerful party,
whatever name it might bear, had sprung up, as it were, in a
night. ... No feature of the rise of the Reformation in France
is more remarkable than the sudden impulse which it received
during the last year or two of Henry II.'s life, and
especially within the brief limits of the reign of his eldest
son. ... There was not a corner of the kingdom where the
number of incipient Protestant churches was not considerable.
Provence alone contained 60, whose delegates this year met in
a synod at the blood-stained village of Mérindol. In large
tracts of country the Huguenots had become so numerous that
they were no longer able or disposed to conceal their
religious sentiments, nor content to celebrate their rites in
private or nocturnal assemblies. This was particularly the
case in Normandy, in Languedoc, and on the banks of the
Rhone."
H. M. Baird,
History of the Rise of the Huguenots,
book 1, chapter 10 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
4th series, chapter 29.
FRANCE: A. D. 1560.
Accession of King Charles IX.
FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
Changed policy of Catharine de' Medici.
Delusive favors to the Huguenots.
The Guises and the Catholics again ascendant.
The massacre of Vassy.
Outbreak of civil war.
Battle of Dreux.
Assassination of Guise.
Peace and the Edict of Amboise.
"Catherine de Medici, now regent, thought it wisest to abandon
the policy which had till then prevailed under the influence
of the Guises, and while she confirmed the Lorraine princes in
the important offices they held, she named, on the other hand,
Antoine de Bourbon [king of Navarre] lieutenant-general of the
kingdom, and took Michel de l'Hôpital as her chief adviser.
... Chancellor de l'Hôpital, like the Regent, aimed at the
destruction of the parties which were rending the kingdom
asunder; but his political programme was that of an honest man
and a true liberal. A wise system of religious toleration and
of administrative reform would, he thought, restore peace and
satisfy all true Frenchmen. 'Let us,' he said, 'do away with
the diabolical party-names which cause so many
seditions--Lutherans, Huguenots, and Papists; let us not alter
the name of Christians.' ... The edicts of Saint Germain and
of January (1562) were favourable to the Huguenots. Religious
meetings were allowed in rural districts; all penalties
previously decreed against Dissenters were suspended on
condition that the old faith should not be interfered with:
finally, the Huguenot divines, with Theodore de Bèze at their
head, were invited to meet the Roman Catholic prelates and
theologians in a conference (colloque) at Poissy, near Paris.
Theodore de Bèze, the faithful associate and coadjutor of
Calvin in the great work of the Reformation, both at Geneva
and in France, is justly and universally regarded as the
historian of the early Huguenots. ... The speech he delivered
at the opening of the colloque is an eloquent plea for liberty
and mutual forbearance. Unfortunately, the conciliatory
measures he proposed satisfied no one."
G. Masson,
The Huguenots,
chapter 2.
"The edict of January ... gave permission to Protestants to
hold meetings for public worship outside the towns, and placed
their meetings under the protection of the law. ... The
Parliament of Paris refused to register the edict until after
repeated orders from the Queen-mother. The Parliament of Dijon
refused to register it. ... The Parliament of Aix refused.
Next, Antoine de Navarre, bribed by a promise of the
restoration of the Spanish part of his little kingdom,
announced that the colloquy of Poissy had converted him,
dismissed Beza and the reformed preachers, sent Jeanne back to
Beárn, demanded the dismissal of the Chatillons from the
court, and invited the Duke of Guise and his brother, the
Cardinal, who were at their château of Joinville, to return to
Paris. Then occurred--it was only six weeks after the Edict
of January--the massacre of Vassy. Nine hundred out of
3,000--the population of that little town--were Protestants.
Rejoicing in the permission granted them by the new law, they
were assembled on the Sunday morning, in a barn outside the
town, for the purpose of public service. The Duke of Guise and
the Cardinal, with their armed escort of gentlemen and
soldiers, riding on their way to Paris, heard the bells which
summoned the people, and asked what they meant. Being told
that it was a Huguenot 'prêche,' the Duke swore that he would
Huguenot them to some purpose. He rode straight to the barn
and entered the place, threatening to murder them all. The
people relying on the law, barred the doors. Then the massacre
began. The soldiers burst open the feeble barrier, and began
to fire among the perfectly unarmed and inoffensive people.
Sixty-four were killed--men, women, and children; 200 were
wounded. This was the signal for war. Condé, on the
intelligence, immediately retired from the court to Meaux,
whence he issued a proclamation calling on all the Protestants
of the country to take up arms. Coligny was at Chatillon,
whither Catharine addressed him letter after letter, urging
upon him, in ambiguous terms, the defence of the King.
{1199}
It seems, though this is obscure, that at one time Condé might
have seized the royal family and held them. But if he had the
opportunity, he neglected it, and the chance never came again.
Henceforward, however, we hear no more talk about Catharine
becoming a Protestant. That pretence will serve her no more.
Before the clash of arms, there was silence for a space. Men
waited till the last man in France who had not spoken should
declare himself. The Huguenots looked to the Admiral, and not
to Condé. It was on him that the real responsibility lay of
declaring civil war. It was a responsibility from which the
strongest man might shrink. ... The Admiral having once made
up his mind, hesitated no longer, and, with a heavy heart, set
off the next day to join Condé. He wrote to Catharine that he
took up arms, not against the King, but against those who held
him captive. He wrote also to his old uncle, the Constable
[Montmorency]. ... The Constable replied. There was no
bitterness between uncle and nephew. The former was fighting
to prevent the 'universal ruin' of his country, and for his
'petits maitres,' the boys, the sons of his old friend, Henry
II. Montmorency joined the Guises in perfect loyalty, and with
the firm conviction that it was the right thing for him to do.
The Chatillon fought in the name of law and justice, and to
prevent the universal massacre of his people. ... Then the
first civil war began with a gallant exploit--the taking of
Orleans [April 1562]. Condé rode into it at the head of 2,000
cavalry, all shouting like schoolboys, and racing for six
miles who should get into the city first. They pillaged the
churches, and turned out the Catholics. 'Those who were that
day turned outside the city wept catholicly that they were
dispossessed of the magazines of the finest wines in France.'
Truly a dire misfortune, for the Catholics to lose all the
best claret districts! Orleans taken, the Huguenots proceeded
to issue protestations and manifestoes, in all of which the
hand of the Admiral is visible. They are not fighting against
the King, who is a prisoner; the war was begun by the Guises.
... They might have added, truly enough, that Condé and the
Admiral held in their hands letters from Catharine, urging
them to carry on the contest for the sake of the young King.
The fall of Orleans was quickly followed by that of Rouen,
Tours, Blois, Bourges, Vienne, Valence, and Montauban. The
civil war was fairly begun. The party was now well organized.
Condé was commander-in-chief by right of his birth; Coligny
was real leader by right of his reputation and wisdom. It was
by him that a Solemn League and Covenant was drawn up, to be
signed by everyone of the Calvinist chiefs. These were,
besides Condé and the Chatillons, La Rochefoucauld, ...
Coligny's nephew and Condé's brother-in-law--he was the
greatest seigneur in Poitou; Rohan, from Dauphine, who was
Condé's cousin; the Prince of Porcian, who was the husband of
Condé's niece. Each of these lords came with a following
worthy of his name. Montgomery, who had slain Henry II.,
brought his Normans; Genlis, the Picards. ... With Andelot
came a troop of Bretons; with the Count de Grammont came 6,000
Gascons. Good news poured in every day. Not only Rouen, but
Havre, Caen, and Dieppe submitted in the North. Angers and
Nantes followed. The road was open in the end for bringing
troops from Germany. The country in the southwest was
altogether in their hands. Meantime, the enemy were not idle.
They began with massacres. In Paris they murdered 800
Huguenots in that first summer of the war. From every side
fugitives poured into Orleans, which became the city of
refuge. There were massacres at Amiens, Senlis, Cahors,
Toulouse, Angoulême--everywhere. Coligny advised a march upon
Paris, where, he urged, the Guises had but a rabble at their
command. His counsels when war was once commenced, were always
for vigorous measures. Condé preferred to wait. Andelot was
sent to Germany, where he raised 3,000 horse. Calvin
despatched letters in every direction, urging on the churches
and the Protestant princes to send help to France. Many of
Coligny's old soldiers of St. Quentin came to fight under his
banner. Elizabeth of England offered to send an army if Calais
were restored; when she saw that no Frenchman would give up
that place again, she still sent men and money, though with
grudging spirit. At length both armies took the field. The
Duke of Guise had under him 8,000 men; Condé 7,000. They
advanced, and met at the little town of Vassodun, where a
conference was held between the Queen-mother and Navarre on
the one hand, and Condé and Coligny on the other. Catharine
proposed that all the chiefs of both sides--Guise, the
Cardinal de Lorraine, St. Andre, Montmorency, Navarre, Condé,
and the Chatillon brothers--should all alike go into voluntary
exile. Condé was nearly persuaded to accept this absurd
proposal. Another conference was held at Taley. These
conferences were only delays. An attempt was made by Catharine
to entrap Condé, which was defeated by the Admiral's prompt
rescue. The Parliament of Paris issued a decree commanding all
Romanists in every parish to rise in arms at the sound of the
bell and to slay every Huguenot. It was said that 50,000 were
thus murdered. No doubt the numbers were grossly exaggerated.
... These cruelties naturally provoked retaliation. ... An
English army occupied Havre. English troops set out for Rouen.
Some few managed to get within the walls. The town was taken
by the Catholics [October 25, 1562], and, for eight days,
plundered. Needless to say that Guise hanged every Huguenot he
could find. Here the King of Navarre was killed. The loss of
Rouen, together with other disasters, greatly discouraged the
Huguenots. Their spirits rose, however, when news came that
Andelot, with 4,000 reiters, was on his way to join them. He
brought them in safety across France, being himself carried in
a litter, sick with ague and fever. The Huguenots advanced
upon Paris, but did not attack the city. At Dreux [December
19, 1562], they met the army of Guise. Protestant historians
endeavor to show that the battle was drawn. In fact both sides
sustained immense losses. St. André was killed, Montmorency
and Condé were taken prisoners. Yet Coligny had to retire from
the field--his rival had outgeneralled him. It was
characteristic of Coligny that he never lost heart. ... With
his German cavalry, a handful of his own infantry, and a small
troop of English soldiers, Coligny swept over nearly the whole
of Normandy. It is true that Guise was not there to oppose
him. Every thing looked well. He was arranging for a 'splendid
alliance' with England, when news came which stayed his hand.
{1200}
Guise marched southwards to Orleans. ... There was in Orleans
a young Huguenot soldier named Jean Poltrot de Méré. He was a
fanatic. ... He waited for an opportunity, worked himself into
the good graces of the Duke, and then shot him with three
balls, in the shoulder. Guise died three days later. ... Then
a peace was signed [and ratified by the Edict of Amboise,
March 19, 1563]. Condé, won over and seduced by the sirens of
the Court, signed it. It was a humiliating and disastrous
peace. Huguenots were to be considered loyal subjects; foreign
soldiers should be sent out of the country; churches and
temples should be restored to their original uses; the suburbs
of one town in every bailiwick, were to be used for Protestant
worship (this was a great reduction on the Edict of January,
which allowed the suburbs of every town); and the nobility and
gentry were to hold worship in their own houses after their
own opinions. The Admiral was furious at this weakness. 'You
have ruined,' he said to Condé, 'more churches by one stroke
of the pen than the enemy could have done in ten years of
war.'"
W. Besant,
Gaspard de Coligny.
chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
Duc d' Aumale,
History of the Princes de Condé,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume l).
E. Bersier,
Earlier Life of Coligny,
chapter 21-26.
FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.
Recovery of Havre from the English.
The Treaty of Troyes.
Under the terms on which the Huguenot leaders procured help
from Elizabeth, the English queen held Havre, and refused to
restore it until after the restoration of Calais to England,
and the repayment of a loan of 140,000 crowns. The Huguenots,
having now made peace with their Catholic fellow countrymen,
were not prepared to fulfill the English contract, according
to Elizabeth's claims, but demanded that Havre should be given
up. The Queen refusing, both the parties, lately in arms
against each other, joined forces, and laid siege to Havre so
vigorously that it was surrendered to them on the 28th of
July, 1563. Peace with England was concluded in the April
following, by a treaty negotiated at Troyes, and the Queen
lost all her rights over Calais.
Duc d'Aumale,
History of the Princes of Condé,
volume 1, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
J. A. Froude,
History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
chapters 6 and 8 (volume 1-2).
FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
The conference at Bayonne.
Outbreak of the Second Civil War.
Battle of St. Denis.
Peace of Longjumeau.
The Third Civil War.
Huguenot rally at La Rochelle.
Appearance of the Queen of Navarre.
Battle of Jarnac.
Death of Condé.
Henry of Navarre chosen to command.
Battle of Moncontour.
Peace of St. Germain.
The religious peace established under the Edict of Amboise
lasted four years. "Not that the Huguenots enjoyed during
these years anything like security or repose. The repeated
abridgment even of those narrow liberties conferred by the
Edict of Amboise, and the frequent outbreaks of popular hatred

in which numbers of them perished, kept them in perpetual
alarm. Still more alarming was the meeting at Bayonne [of
Catherine de' Medici, the young king, her son, and the Duke of
Alva, representing Philip II. of Spain] in the summer of 1565.
... Amid the Court festivities which took place, it was known
that there had been many secret meetings between Alva,
Catherine, and, Charles. The darkest suspicions as to their
objects and results spread over France. It was generally
believed--falsely, as from Alva's letters it now appears--that
a simultaneous extermination of all heretics in the French and
Spanish dominions had been agreed upon. To anticipate this
stroke, Coligni proposed that the person of the King should be
seized upon. The Court, but slenderly guarded, was then at
Monceaux. The project had almost succeeded. Some time,
however, was lost. The Court got warning and fled to Meaux.
Six thousand Swiss arrived, and by a rapid march carried the
King to Paris. After such a failure, nothing was left to the
Huguenots but the chances of a second civil war. Condé entered
boldly on the campaign. Though he had with him but 1,500 horse
and 1,200 infantry, he marched to Paris, and offered battle to
the royal troops beneath its walls. The Constable
[Montmorency], who had 18,000 men at his command, accepted the
challenge, and on the 10th of November 1567, the battle of St.
Denis was fought. ... Neither party could well claim the
victory, as both retired from the field. The royal army had to
mourn the loss that day of its aged and gallant commander, the
Constable. Condé renewed next day the challenge, which was not
accepted. The winter months were spent by the Huguenots in
effecting a junction with some German auxiliaries, and in the
spring they appeared in such force upon the field that, on the
23d March 1568, the Peace of Longjumeau was ratified, which
re-established, free from all modifications and restrictions,
the Edict of Amboise. It was evident from the first that this
treaty was not intended to be kept; that it had been entered
into by the government solely to gain time, and to scatter the
ranks of the Huguenots. Coligni sought Condé at his château of
Noyers in Burgundy. He had scarcely arrived when secret
intelligence was given them of a plot upon their lives. They
had barely time to fly, making many a singular escape by the
way, and reaching Rochelle, which from this time became the
head-quarters of the Huguenots, on the 15th September 1568.
During the first two religious wars ... the seat of war was so
remote from her dominions that the Queen of Navarre [Jeanne
d'Albret,--see NAVARRE: A.D. 1528-1563] had satisfied herself
with opening her country as an asylum for those Huguenots
driven thither out of the southern counties of France. But
when she heard that Condé and Coligni ... were on their way to
Rochelle, to raise there once more the Protestant banner,
convinced that the French Court meditated nothing short of the
extermination of the Huguenots, she determined openly to cast
in her lot with her co-religionists, and to give them all the
help she could. Dexterously deceiving Montluc, who had
received instructions to watch her movements, and to seize
upon her person if she showed any intention of leaving her own
dominions, after a flight as precipitous and almost as
perilous as that of Condé and Coligni, she reached Rochelle on
the 29th September, ten days after their arrival. This town,
for nearly a century the citadel of Protestantism in France,
having by its own unaided power freed itself from the English
dominion [in the period between 1368 and 1380] had had
extraordinary municipal privileges bestowed on it in
return--among others, that of an entirely independent
jurisdiction, both civil and military.
{1201}
Like so many of the great commercial marts of Europe, in which
the spirit of freedom was cherished, it had early welcomed the
teaching of the Reformers, and at the time now before us
nearly the whole of its inhabitants were Huguenots. ... About
the very time that the Queen of Navarre entered Rochelle a
royal edict appeared, prohibiting, under pain of death, the
exercise of any other than the Roman Catholic religion in
France, imposing upon all the observance of its rites and
ceremonies; and banishing from the realm all preachers of the
doctrine of Calvin, fifteen days only being allowed them to
quit the kingdom. It was by the sword that this stern edict
was to be enforced or rescinded. Two powerful armies of nearly
equal strength mustered speedily. One was nominally under the
command of the Duke of Anjou, but really led by Tavannes,
Biron, Brissac, and the young Duke of Guise, the last burning
to emulate the military glory of his father; the other under
the command of Condé and Coligni. The two armies were close
upon one another; their generals desired to bring them into
action; they were more than once actually in each other's
presence; but the unprecedented inclemency of the weather
prevented an engagement, and at last, without coming into
collision, both had to retire to winter quarters. The delay
was fatal to the Huguenots." In the following spring (March
13, 1569), while their forces were still scattered and
unprepared, they were forced into battle with the
better-generaled Royalists, at Jarnac, and were grievously
defeated. Condé, wounded and taken prisoner, was treated at
first with respect by the officers who received his sword. But
"Montesquiou, captain of the Swiss Guard of the Duke of Anjou,
galloped up to the spot, and, hearing who the prisoner was,
deliberately levelled his pistol at him and shot him through
the head. The Duke passed no censure on his officer, and
expressed no regret at his deed. The grossest indignities were
afterwards, by his orders, heaped upon the dead body of the
slain. The defeat of Jarnac, and still more the death of
Condé, threw the Huguenot army into despair. ... The utter
dissolution of the army seemed at hand. The Admiral sent a
messenger to the Queen of Navarre at Rochelle, entreating her
to come to the camp. She was already on her way. On arrival,
and after a short consultation with the Admiral, the army was
drawn up to receive her. She rode along the ranks--her son
Henry on one side, the son of the deceased Condé on the
other." Then she addressed to the troops an inspiring speech,
concluding with these heroic words: "Soldiers, I offer you
everything I have to give,--my dominions, my treasures, my
life, and, what is dearer to me than all, my children. I make
here solemn oath before you all--I swear to defend to my last
sigh the holy cause which now unites us." "The soldiers
crowded around the Queen, and unanimously, as if by sudden
impulse, hailed young Henry of Navarre as their future
general. The Admiral and La Rochefoucauld were the first to
swear fidelity to the Prince; then came the inferior officers
and the whole assembled soldiery; and it was thus that, in his
fifteenth year, the Prince of Béarn was inaugurated as
general-in-chief of the army of the Huguenots." In June the
Huguenot army effected a junction at St. Yriex with a division
of German auxiliaries, led by the Duc de Deux-Ponts, and
including among its chiefs the Prince of Orange and his
brother Louis of Nassau. They attacked the Duke of Anjou at La
Roche-Abeille and gained a slight advantage; but wasted their
strength during the summer, contrary to the advice of the
Admiral Coligny, in besieging Poitiers. The Duke of Anjou
approached with a superior army, and, again in opposition to
the judgment of Coligny, the Huguenots encountered him at
Moncontour (October 3, 1569), where they suffered the worst of
their defeats, leaving 5,000 dead and wounded on the field.
Meanwhile a French army had entered Navarre, had taken the
capital and spread destruction everywhere through the small
kingdom; but the Queen sent Count de Montgomery to rally her
people, and the invaders were driven out. Coligny and Prince
Henry wintered their troops in the far south, then moved
rapidly northwards in the spring, up the valley of the Rhone,
across the Cevennes, through Burgundy, approaching the Loire,
and were met by the Marshal de Cosse at Arnay-le-Duc, where
Henry of Navarre won his first success in arms--Coligny being
ill. Though it was but a partial victory it brought about a
breathing time of peace. "This happened in the end of June,
and on the 8th of August [1570] the Peace of St.
Germain-en-Laye was signed, and France had two full years of
quiet."
W. Hanna,
The Wars of the Huguenots,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
Duc d'Aumale,
History of the Princes de Condé,
book 1, chapter 4-5 (volume 1-2).
M. W. Freer,
Life of Jeanne d'Albret,
chapters 8-10.
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos of English History,
5th series, chapter 8.
FRANCE: A. D. 1570-1572.
Coligny at court and his influence with the King.
Projected war with Spain.
The desperate step of Catharine de' Medici, and its
consequence in the plot of Massacre.
"After the Peace of 1570, it appeared as if a complete change
of policy was about to take place. The Queen pretended to be
friendly with the Protestants; her relations with the
ambitious Guises were distant and cold, and the project of
uniting the Houses of Bourbon and Valois by marriage [the
marriage of Henry of Navarre with the king's sister,
Marguerite] really looked as if she was in earnest. The most
distinguished leader of the Huguenot party was the Admiral
Caspar de Coligny. It is quite refreshing at this doleful
period to meet with such a character. He was a nobleman of the
old French school and of the best stamp; lived upon his estates
with his family, his little court, his retainers and subjects,
in ancient patriarchal style, and on the best terms, and
regularly went with them to the Protestant worship and the
communion; a man of unblemished morality and strict
Calvinistic views of life. Whatever this man said or did was
the result of his inmost convictions; his life was the
impersonation of his views and thoughts. In the late turbulent
times he had become an important person as leader and
organizer of the Protestant armies. At his call, thousands of
noblemen and soldiers took up arms, and they submitted under
his command to very strict discipline. He could not boast of
having won many battles, but he was famous for having kept his
resources together after repeated defeats, and for rising up
stronger than before after every lost engagement. ... Now that
peace was made, 'why,' he asked, 'excite further dissensions
for the benefit of our common enemies? Let us direct our
undivided forces against the real enemy of France--against
Spain, who stirs up intrigues in our civil, wars. Let us crush
this power, which condemns us to ignominious dependence.'
{1202}
The war against Spain was Coligny's project. It was the idea
of a good Huguenot, for it was directed against the most
blindly fanatical and dangerous foe of the new doctrines; but
it was also that of a good Frenchman, for a victory over Spain
would increase the power of France in the direction of
Burgundy. ... From September, 1571, Coligny was at court. On
his first arrival he was heartily welcomed by the King,
embraced by Catharine, and loaded with honours and favours by
both. I am not of opinion that this was a deeply laid scheme
to entrap the guileless hero, the more easily to ruin him.
Catharine's ideas did not extend so far. Still less do I
believe that the young King was trained to play the part of a
hypocrite, and regarded Coligny as a victim to be cherished
until the fête day. I think, rather, that Catharine, in her
changeableness and hatred of the Guises, was now really
disposed to make peace with the Protestants, and that the
young King was for the time impressed by this superior
personage. No youthful mind is so degraded as to be entirely
inaccessible to such influence. ... I believe that the first
and only happy day in the life of this unfortunate monarch was
when he met Coligny, who raised him above the degradation of
vulgar life; and I believe further, that this relation was the
main cause of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. A new influence
was threatening to surround the King and to take deep root,
which Catharine, her son Henry of Anjou, and the strict
Catholic party, must do their utmost to avert; and it was
quite in accordance with the King's weak character to allow
the man to be murdered whom he had just called 'Father.' ...
It appears that about the middle of the year [1572] the matter
[of war with Spain and help to the revolting Netherlands] was
as good as decided. The King willingly acceded to Coligny's
plan ... [and] privately gave considerable sums for the
support of the Flemish patriots, for the equipment of an army
of 4,000 men, composed of Catholics and Protestants, who
marched towards Mons, to succour Louis of Nassau. When in July
this army was beaten, and the majority of the Huguenots were
in despair, Coligny succeeded in persuading the King to equip
a fresh and still larger army; but the opposition then
bestirred itself. ...The Queen ... had been absent, with her
married daughter in Lorraine, and on her return she found
everything changed; the Guises without influence, herself
thrust on one side. Under the impression of the latest events
in Flanders, which made it likely that the war with Spain
would be ruinous, she hastened to the King, told him with
floods of tears that it would be his ruin; that the Huguenots,
through Coligny, had stolen the King's confidence,
unfortunately for himself and the country. She made some
impression upon him, but it did not last long, and thoughts of
war gained the upper hand again. The idea now (August, 1572),
must have been matured in Catharine's mind of venturing on a
desperate step, in order to save her supremacy and influence.
... The idea ripened in her mind of getting rid of Coligny by
assassination. ... Entirely of one mind with her son Henry,
she turned to the Guises, with whom she was at enmity when
they were in power, but friendly when they were of no more
consequence than herself. They breathed vengeance against the
Calvinists, and were ready at once to avenge the murder of
Francis of Guise by a murderous attack upon Coligny. An
assassin was hired, and established in a house belonging to
the Guises, near Coligny's dwelling, and as he came out of the
palace, on the 22nd of August, a shot was fired at him, which
wounded but did not kill him. Had Coligny died of his wound,
Catharine would have been content. ... But Coligny did not
die; the Huguenots defiantly demanded vengeance on the
well-known instigator of the deed; their threats reached the
Queen and Prince Henry of Anjou, and the personal fascination
which Coligny had exercised over King Charles appeared rather
to increase than to diminish. Thus doubtless arose, during the
anxious hours after the failure of the assassination, the idea of
an act of violence on a large scale, which should strike a
blow at Coligny and his friends before they had time for
revenge. It certainly had not been in preparation for months,
not even since the time that Coligny had been at Court; it was
conceived in the agony of these hours."
L. Hausser,
The Period of the Reformation,
chapter 27.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
part 3, chapters 6-7 (volume 2).
L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
chapter 15.
FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (August).
The Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.
"With some proofs, forged or real, in her hand that he was in
personal danger, the Queen Mother [August 24] presented
herself to her son. She told him that at the moment she was
speaking the Huguenots were arming. Sixteen thousand of them
intended to assemble in the morning, seize the palace, destroy
herself, the Duke of Anjou, and the Catholic noblemen, and
carry off Charles. The conspiracy, she said, extended through
France. The chiefs of the congregations were waiting for a
signal from Coligny to rise in every province and town. The
Catholics had discovered the plot, and did not mean to sit
still to be murdered. If the King refused to act with them,
they would choose another leader; and whatever happened he
would be himself destroyed. Unable to say that the story could
not be true, Charles looked enquiringly at Tavannas and De
Nevers, and they both confirmed the Queen Mother's words.
Shaking his incredulity with reminders of Amboise and Meaux,
Catherine went on to say that one man was the cause of all the
troubles in the realm. The Admiral aspired to rule all France,
and she--she admitted, with Anjou and the Guises, had
conspired to kill him to save the King and the country. She
dropped all disguise. The King, she said, must now assist them
or all would be lost. ... Charles was a weak, passionate boy,
alone in the dark conclave of iniquity. He stormed, raved,
wept, implored, spoke of his honour, his plighted word; swore
at one moment that the Admiral should not be touched, then
prayed them to try other means. But clear, cold and venomous,
Catherine told him it was too late. If there was a judicial
enquiry, the Guises would shield themselves by telling all
that they knew. They would betray her; they would betray his
brother; and, fairly or unfairly, they would not spare
himself. ... For an hour and a half the King continued to
struggle. 'You refuse, then,' Catherine said at last. ... 'Is
it that you are afraid, Sire?' she hissed in his ear. 'By
God's death,' he cried, springing to his feet, 'since you will
kill the Admiral, kill them all.
{1203}
Kill all the Huguenots in France, that none may be left to
reproach me. Mort Dieu! Kill them all.' He dashed out of the
cabinet. A list of those who were to die was instantly drawn
up. Navarre and Condé were first included; but Catherine
prudently reflected that to kill the Bourbons would make the
Guises too strong. Five or six names were added to the
Admiral's, and these Catherine afterwards asserted were all
that it was intended should suffer. ... Night had now fallen.
Guise and Aumale were still lurking in the city, and came with
the Duke of Montpensier at Catherine's summons. The persons
who were to be killed were in different parts of the town.
Each took charge of a district. Montpensier promised to see to
the Palace; Guise and his uncle undertook the Admiral; and below
these, the word went out to the leaders of the already
organised sections, who had been disappointed once, but whose
hour was now come. The Catholics were to recognise one another
in the confusion by a white handkerchief on the left arm and a
white cross in their caps. The Royal Guard, Catholics to a
man, were instruments ready made for the work. Guise assembled
the officers: he told them that the Huguenots were preparing
to rise, and that the King had ordered their instant
punishment. The officers asked no questions, and desired no
better service. The business was to begin at dawn. The signal
would be the tolling of the great bell at the Palace of
Justice, and the first death was to be Coligny's. The soldiers
stole to their posts. Twelve hundred lay along the Seine,
between the river and the Hotel de Ville; other companies
watched at the Louvre. As the darkness waned, the Queen Mother
went down to the gate. The stillness of the dawn was broken by
an accidental pistol-shot. Her heart sank, and she sent off a
messenger to tell Guise to pause. But it was too late. A
minute later the bell boomed out, and the massacre of St.
Bartholomew had commenced." The assassins broke into the
Admiral's dwelling and killed him as he lay wounded in bed.
"The window was open. 'Is it done?' cried Guise from the court
below, 'is it done? Fling him out that we may see him.' Still
breathing, the Admiral was hurled upon the pavement. The
Bastard of Angoulême wiped the blood from his face to be sure
of his identity, and then, kicking him as he lay, shouted, 'So
far well. Courage, my brave boys! now for the rest.' One of
the Duc de Nevers's people hacked off the head. A rope was
knotted about the ankles, and the corpse
was dragged out into the street amidst the howling crowd.
Teligny, ... Rochefoucault, and the rest of the Admiral's
friends who lodged in the neighbourhood were disposed of in
the same way, and so complete was the surprise that there was
not the most faint attempt at resistance. Montpensier had been
no less successful in the Louvre. The staircases were all
beset. The retinues of the King of Navarre and the Prince had
been lodged in the palace at Charles's particular desire.
Their names were called over, and as they descended unarmed
into the quadrangle they were hewn in pieces. There, in heaps,
they fell below the Royal window, under the eyes of the
miserable King, who was forced forward between his mother and
his brother that he might be seen as the accomplice of the
massacre. Most of the victims were killed upon the spot. Some
fled wounded up the stairs, and were slaughtered in the
presence of the Princesses. ... By seven o'clock the work
which Guise and his immediate friends had undertaken was
finished with but one failure. The Count Montgomery and the
Vidame of Chartres ... escaped to England. The mob meanwhile
was in full enjoyment. ... While dukes and lords were killing
at the Louvre, the bands of the sections imitated them with
more than success; men, women, and even children, striving
which should be the first in the pious work of murder. All
Catholic Paris was at the business, and every Huguenot
household had neighbours to know and denounce them. Through
street and lane and quay and causeway, the air rang with yells
and curses, pistol-shots and crashing windows; the roadways
were strewed with mangled bodies, the doors were blocked by
the dead and dying. From garret, closet, roof, or stable,
crouching creatures were torn shrieking out, and stabbed and
hacked at; boys practised their hands by strangling babies in
their cradles, and headless bodies were trailed along the
trottoirs. ... Towards midday some of the quieter people
attempted to restore order. A party of the town police made
their way to the palace. Charles caught eagerly at their
offers of service, and bade them do their utmost to put the
people down; but it was all in vain. The soldiers, maddened
with plunder and blood, could not be brought to assist, and
without them nothing could be done. All that afternoon and
night, and the next day and the day after, the horrible scenes
continued, till the flames burnt down at last for want of
fuel. The number who perished in Paris was computed variously
from 2,000 to 10,000. In this, as in all such instances, the
lowest estimate is probably the nearest to the truth. The
massacre was completed--completed in Paris--only, as it
proved, to be continued elsewhere. ... On the 24th, while the
havoc was at its height, circulars went round to the provinces
that a quarrel had broken out between the Houses of Guise and
Coligny; that the Admiral and many more had been unfortunately
killed, and that the King himself had been in danger through
his efforts to control the people. The governors of the
different towns were commanded to repress at once any symptoms
of disorder which might show themselves, and particularly to
allow no injury to be done to the Huguenots." But Guise, when
he learned of these circulars, which threw upon him the odium
of the massacre, forced the King to recall them. "The story of
the Huguenot conspiracy was revived. ... The Protestants of
the provinces, finding themselves denounced from the throne,
were likely instantly to take arms to defend themselves.
Couriers were therefore despatched with second orders that
they should be dealt with as they had been dealt with at
Paris; and at Lyons, Orleans, Rouen, Bordeaux, Toulon, Meaux,
in half the towns and villages of France, the bloody drama was
played once again. The King, thrown out into the hideous
torrent of blood, became drunk with frenzy, and let slaughter
have its way, till even Guise himself affected to be shocked,
and interposed to put an end to it; not, however, till,
according to the belief of the times, 100,000 men, women and
children had been miserably murdered. ... The number again may
be hoped to have been prodigiously exaggerated; with all large
figures, when unsupported by exact statistics, it is safe to
divide at least by ten."
J. A. Froude,
History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
chapter 23 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
H. White,
The Massacre of St. Bartholomew,
chapters 12-14.
Duke of Sully,
Memoirs,
book 1.
G. P. Fisher,
The Massacre of St. Bartholomew
(New Englander, January, 1880).
{1204}
FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (August-October).
The king's avowal of responsibility for the Massacre, and
celebration of his "victory."
Rejoicings at Rome and Madrid.
General horror of Europe.
The effects in France.
Changed character of the Protestant party.
"On the morning of the 26th of August, Charles IX. went to
hold a 'bed of justice' in the parliament, carrying with him
the king of Navarre, and he then openly avowed that the
massacre had been perpetrated by his orders, made ... excuse
for it, grounded on a pretended conspiracy of the Huguenots
against his person, and then directed the parliament to
commence judicial proceedings against Coligni and his
accomplices, dead or alive, on the charge of high treason. The
parliament obeyed, and, after a process of two months, which
was a mere tissue of falsehoods, they not only found all the
dead guilty, but they included in the sentence two of the
principal men who had escaped--the old captain Briquemaut,
and Arnaud de Cavaignes. ... Both were hanged at the Place de
Grève, in the presence of the king, who compelled the king of
Navarre also to be a witness of their execution. Having once
assumed the responsibility of the massacre of the protestants,
Charles IX. began to glory in the deed. On the 27th of August,
he went with the whole court to Montfaucon, to contemplate the
mutilated remains of the admiral. ... Next day, a grand
jubilee procession was headed by the king in celebration of
his so-called victory. ... The 'victory' was also celebrated
by two medals. ... Nevertheless, the minds of Charles and his
mother were evidently ill at ease, and their misgivings as to
the effect which would be produced at foreign courts by the
news of these proceedings are very evident in the varying and
often contradictory orders which they dispatched into the
provinces. ... The news of these terrible events caused an
extreme agitation in all the courts throughout Christian
Europe. Philip of Spain, informed of the massacres by a letter
from the king and the queen-mother, written on the 29th of
August, replied by warm congratulations and expressions of
joy. The cardinal of Lorraine, who was ... at Rome, gave a
reward of 1,000 écus of gold to the courier who brought the
despatches, and the news was celebrated at Rome by the firing
of the cannons of the castle of St. Angelo, and by the
lighting of bon-fires in the streets. The pope (Gregory XIII.)
and the sacred college went in grand procession to the
churches to offer their thanks to God. ... Not content with
these demonstrations, the pope caused a medal to be struck.
... Gregory dispatched immediately to the court of France the
legate Fabio d'Orsini, with a commission to congratulate the
king and his mother for the vigour they had shown in the
repression of heresy, to demand the reception in France of the
council of Trent, and the establishment of the Inquisition.
... But the papal legate found the court of France in a
different temper from that which he anticipated. Catherine,
alarmed at the effect which these great outrages had produced
on the protestant sovereigns, found it necessary to give him
private intimations that the congratulations of the pontiff
were untimely, and could not be publicly accepted. ... The
policy of the French court at home was no less distasteful to
the papal legate than its relations abroad. The old edicts
against the public exercise of the protestant worship were
gradually revived, and the Huguenots were deprived of the
offices which they had obtained during the short period of
toleration, but strict orders were sent round to forbid any
further massacres, with threats of punishment against those
who had already offended. On the 8th of October, the king
published a declaration, inviting such of the protestants as
had quitted the kingdom in consequence of the massacres to
return, and promising them safety; but this was soon followed
by letters to the governors of the provinces, directing them
to exhort the Huguenot gentry and others to conform to the
catholic faith, and declaring that he would tolerate only one
religion in his kingdom. Many, believing that the protestant
cause was entirely ruined in France, complied, and this
defection was encouraged by the example of the two princes of
Bourbon [Henry, now king of Navarre, his mother, Jeanne
d'Albret, having died June 9, 1572, and Henry, the young
prince of Condé], who, after some weeks of violent resistance,
submitted at the end of September, and, at least in outward
form, became catholics. It has been remarked that the massacre
of St. Bartholomew's-day produced an entire change in the
character of the protestant party in France. The Huguenots had
hitherto been entirely ruled by their aristocracy, who took
the lead and direction in every movement; but now the great
mass of the protestant nobility had perished or deserted the
cause, and from this moment the latter depended for support
upon the inhabitants of some of the great towns and upon the
un-noble class of the people; and with this change it took a
more popular character, in some cases showing even a tendency
to republicanism. In the towns where the protestants were
strong enough to offer serious resistance, such as La
Rochelle, Nimes, Sancerre, and Montauban, the richer burghers,
and a part at least of the municipal officers, were in favour
of submission, and they were restrained only by the resolution
and devotion of the less wealthy portion of the population."
T. Wright,
History of France,
book 3, chapter 7 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
H. M. Baird,
History of the Rise of the Huguenots,
chapter 19 (volume 2).
A. de Montor,
Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
volume 1, pages 810-812.
{1205}
FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.
The Fourth Religious War.
Siege and successful defence of La Rochelle.
A favorable peace.
"The two Reformer-princes, Henry of Navarre and Henry de
Condé, attended mass on the 29th of September, and, on the 3d
of October, wrote to the pope, deploring their errors and
giving hopes of their conversion. Far away from Paris, in the
mountains of the Pyrenees and of Languedoc, in the towns where
the Reformers were numerous and confident ... the spirit of
resistance carried the day. An assembly, meeting at Milhau,
drew up a provisional ordinance for the government of the
Reformed church, 'until it please God, who has the hearts of
kings in His keeping, to change that of King Charles IX. and
restore the state of France to good order, or to raise up such
neighboring prince as is manifest marked out, by his virtue
and by distinguishing signs, for to be the liberator of this
poor afflicted people.' In November, 1572, the fourth
religious war broke out. The siege of La Rochelle was its only
important event. Charles IX. and his councillors exerted
themselves in vain to avoid it. There was everything to
disquiet them in this enterprise: so sudden a revival of the
religious war after the grand blow they had just struck, the
passionate energy manifested by the Protestants in asylum at
La Rochelle, and the help they had been led to hope for from
Queen Elizabeth, whom England would never have forgiven for
indifference in this cause. ... The king heard that one of the
bravest Protestant chiefs, La Noue, 'Ironarm,' had retired to
Mons with Prince Louis of Nassau. The Duke of Longueville ...
induced him to go to Paris. The king received him with great
favor ... and pressed him to go to La Rochelle and prevail
upon the inhabitants to keep the peace. ... La Noue at last
consented, and repaired, about the end of November, 1572, to a
village close by La Rochelle, whither it was arranged that
deputies from the town would come and confer with him. ...
After hearing him, the senate rejected the pacific overtures
made to them by La Noue. 'We have no mind [they said] to treat
specially and for ourselves alone; our cause is that of God
and of all the churches of France; we will accept nothing but
what shall seem proper to all our brethren.'" They then
offered to trust themselves under La Noue's command,
notwithstanding the commission by which he was acting for the
king. "La Noue did not hesitate; he became, under the
authority of the mayor, Jacques Henri, the military head of La
Rochelle, whither Charles IX. had sent him to make peace. The
king authorized him to accept this singular position. La Noue
conducted himself so honorably in it, and everybody was so
convinced of his good faith as well as bravery, that for three
months he commanded inside La Rochelle, and superintended the
preparations for defence, all the while trying to make the
chances of peace prevail. At the end of February, 1573, he
recognized the impossibility of his double commission, and he
went away from La Rochelle, leaving the place in better
condition than that in which he had found it, without either
king or Rochellese considering that they had any right to
complain of him. Biron first and then the Duke of Anjou in
person took the command of the siege. They brought up, it is
said, 40,000 men and 60 pieces of artillery. The Rochellese,
for defensive strength, had but 22 companies of refugees or
inhabitants, making in all 3,100 men. The siege lasted from
the 26th of February to the 13th of June, 1573; six assaults
were made on the place. ... La Rochelle was saved. Charles IX.
was more and more desirous of peace; his brother, the Duke of
Anjou, had just been elected King of Poland; Charles IX. was
anxious for him to leave France and go to take possession of
his new kingdom. Thanks to these complications, the peace of
La Rochelle was signed on the 6th of July, 1573. Liberty of
creed and worship was recognized in the three towns of La
Rochelle, Montauban, and Nimes. They were not obliged to
receive any royal garrison, on condition of giving hostages to
be kept by the king for two years. Liberty of worship throughout
the extent of their jurisdiction continued to be recognized in
the case of lords high-justiciary. Everywhere else the
Reformers had promises of not being persecuted for their
creed, under the obligation of never holding an assembly of
more than ten persons at a time. These were the most favorable
conditions they had yet obtained. Certainly this was not what
Charles IX, had calculated upon when he consented to the
massacre of the Protestants."
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 33.
FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.
Escape of Condé and Navarre.
Death of Charles IX.
Accession of Henry III.
The Fifth Civil War.
Navarre's repudiation of Catholicism.
The Peace of Monseur.
The King's mignons and the nation's disgust.
"Catherine ... had the address to procure the crown of Poland
for the son of her predilection, Henry duke of Anjou. She had
lavished her wealth upon the electors for this purpose. No
sooner was the point gained than she regretted it. The health
of Charles was now manifestly on the decline, and Catherine
would fain have retained Henry; but the jealousy of the king
forbade. After conducting the duke on his way to Poland the
court returned to St. Germain, and Charles sunk, without hope
or consolation, on his couch of sickness. Even here he was not
allowed to repose. The young king of Navarre formed a project
of escape with the prince of Condé. The duc d' Alençon,
youngest brother of the king, joined in it. ... The vigilance
of the queen-mother discovered the enterprise, which, for her
own purposes, she magnified into a serious plot. Charles was
informed that a huguenot army was coming to surprise him, and
he was obliged to be removed into a litter, in order to
escape. ... Condé was the only prince that succeeded in making
his escape. The king of Navarre and the duc d' Alençon were
imprisoned." The young king of Navarre "had already succeeded
by his address, his frankness, and high character, in rallying
to his interests the most honourable of the noblesse, who
dreaded at once the perfidious Catherine and her children; who
had renounced their good opinion of young Guise after the day
of St. Bartholomew; and who, at the same time professing
Catholicism, were averse to huguenot principles and zeal. This
party, called the Politiques, professed to follow the middle
or neutral course, which at one time had been that of
Catherine of Medicis; but she had long since deserted it, and
had joined in all the sanguinary and extreme measures of her
son and of the Guises. Hence she was especially odious to the
new and moderate party of the Politiques, among whom the
family of Montmorency held the lead. Catherine feared their
interference at the moment of the king's death, whilst his
successor was absent in a remote kingdom; and she swelled the
project of the princes' escape into a serious conspiracy, in
order to be mistress of those whom she feared. ... In this
state of the court Charles IX. expired on the 30th of May,
1574, after having nominated the queen-mother to be regent
during his successor's absence. ... The career of the new king
[Henry III.], while duke of Anjou, had been glorious. Raised
to the command of armies at the age of 15, he displayed
extreme courage as well as generalship.
{1206}
He had defeated the veteran leader of the protestants at
Jarnac and at Moncontour; and the fame of his exploits had
contributed to place him on the elective throne of Poland,
which he now occupied. Auguring from his past life, a
brilliant epoch might be anticipated; and yet we enter upon
the most contemptible reign, perhaps, in the annals of France.
... Henry was obliged to run away by stealth from his Polish
subjects [see POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590]. When overtaken by one
of the nobles of that kingdom, the monarch, instead of
pleading his natural anxiety to visit France and secure his
inheritance, excused himself by drawing forth the portrait of
his mistress, ... and declared that it was love which hastened
his return. At Vienna, however, Henry forgot both crown and
mistress amidst the feasts that were given him; and he turned
aside to Venice, to enjoy a similar reception from that rich
republic. ... The hostile parties were in the meantime arming.
The Politiques, or neutral catholics, for the first time
showed themselves in the field. They demanded the freedom of
Cossé and of Montmorency, and at length formed a treaty of
alliance with the Huguenots. Henry, after indulging in the
ceremony of being crowned, was obliged to lead an army into
the field. Sieges were undertaken on both sides, and what is
called the fifth civil war raged openly. It became more
serious when the king's brother joined it. This was the duke
of Alençon, a vain and fickle personage, of whom it pleased
the king to become jealous. Alençon fled and joined the
malcontents. The reformers, however, waited but languidly.
Both parties were without active and zealous leaders; and the
only notable event of this war was a skirmish in Champagne
[the battle of Dormans, in which both sides lost heavily],
where the duke of Guise received a slight wound in the cheek.
From hence came his surname of 'Le Balafré.'" In February,
1576, the king of Navarre made his escape from court. "He bent
his course towards Guienne, and at Niort publicly avowed his
adherence to the reformed religion, declaring that force alone
had made him conform to the mass. It was about this time that
the king, in lieu of leading an army against the malcontents,
despatched the queen-mother, with her gay and licentious
court, to win back his brother. She succeeded, though not
without making large concessions [in a treaty called the
'Peace of Monsieur']. The duke of Alençon obtained Anjou, and
other provinces in appanage, and henceforth was styled duke of
Anjou. More favourable terms were granted to the Huguenots:
they were allowed ten towns of surety in lieu of six, and the
appointment of a certain number of judges in the parliament.
Such weakness in Henry disgusted the body of the catholics;
and the private habits of his life contributed still more, if
possible, than his public measures, to render him
contemptible. He was continually surrounded by a set of young
and idle favourites, whose affectation it was to unite
ferocity with frivolity. The king showed them such tender
affection as he might evince towards woman; they even had the
unblushing impudence to adopt feminine habits of dress; and
the monarch passed his time in adorning them and himself with
robes and ear-rings. ... The indescribable tastes and
amusements of Henry and his mignons, as his favourites were
called, ... raised up throughout the nation one universal cry
of abhorrence and contempt."
E. E. Crowe,
History of France,
chapters 8-9 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
Lady Jackson,
The Last of the Valois,
volume 2, chapters 2-6.
S. Menzies,
Royal Favourites,
volume 1, chapter 5.
FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585.
The rise of the League.
Its secret objects and aims.
Its alliance with Philip II. of Spain.
The Pope's Bull against Navarre and Condé.
"The famous association known as the 'Catholic League' or
'Holy Union,' took its rise from the strangely indulgent terms
granted to the Huguenots by the 'Peace of Monsieur,' in April,
1576. Four years had scarcely elapsed since the bloodstained
Eve of St. Bartholomew. It had been hoped that by means of
that execrable crime the Reformation would have been finally
crushed and extinguished in France; but instead of this, a
treaty was concluded with the heretics, which placed them in a
more favourable situation than they had ever occupied before.
... It was regarded by the majority of Catholics as a wicked
and cowardly betrayal of their most sacred interests. They
ascribed it to its true source, namely, the hopeless
incapacity of the reigning monarch, Henry III.; a prince whose
monstrous vices and gross misgovernment were destined to
reduce France to a state of disorganization bordering on
national ruin. The idea of a general confederation of
Catholics for the defence of the Faith against the inroads of
heresy had been suggested by the Cardinal of Lorraine during
the Council of Trent, and had been favourably entertained at
the Court of Rome. The Duke of Guise was to have been placed
at the head of this alliance; but his sudden death changed the
face of affairs, and the project fell into abeyance. The
Cardinal of Lorraine was now no more; he died at Avignon, at
the age of 50, in December, 1574. ... Henry, the third Duke of
Guise, inherited in their fullest extent the ambition, the
religious ardour, the lofty political aspirations, the
enterprising spirit, the personal popularity, of his
predecessors. The League of 1576 was conceived entirely in his
interest. He was the leader naturally pointed out for such a
movement;--a movement which, although its ulterior objects
were at first studiously concealed, aimed in reality at
substituting the family of Lorraine for that of Valois on the
throne of France. The designs of the confederates, as set
forth in the original manifesto which was circulated for
signature, seemed at first sight highly commendable, both with
regard to religion and politics. According to this document, the
Union was formed for three great purposes: to uphold the
Catholic Church; to suppress heresy; and to maintain the
honour, the authority and prerogatives of the Most Christian
king and his successors. On closer examination, however,
expressions were detected which hinted at less constitutional
projects. ... Their secret aims became incontestably manifest
soon afterwards, when one of their confidential agents, an
advocate named David, happened to die suddenly on his return
from Rome, and his papers fell into the hands of the
Huguenots, who immediately made them public. ... A change of
dynasty in France was the avowed object of the scheme thus
disclosed. It set forth, in substance, that the Capetian
monarchs were usurpers,--the throne belonging rightfully to
the house of Lorraine as the lineal descendants of
Charlemagne. ...
{1207}
The Duke of Guise, with the advice and permission of the Pope,
was to imprison Henry for the rest of his days in a monastery,
after the example of his ancestor Pepin when he dethroned the
Merovingian Childeric. Lastly, the heir of the Carlovingians
was to be proclaimed King of France; and, on assuming the
crown, was to make such arrangements with his Holiness as
would secure the complete recognition of the sovereignty of
the Vicar of Christ, by abrogating for ever the so-called
'liberties of the Gallican Church.' ... This revolutionary
plot ... unhappily, was viewed with cordial sympathy, and
supported with enthusiastic zeal, by many of the prelates, and
a large majority of the parochial clergy, of France. ... The
death of the Duke of Anjou, presumptive heir to the throne, in
1584, determined the League to immediate action. In the event
of the king's dying without issue, which was most
probable,--the crown would now devolve upon Henry of Bourbon
[the King of Navarre], the acknowledged leader of the
Huguenots. ... In January, 1585, the chiefs of the League
signed a secret treaty at Joinville with the King of Spain, by
which the contracting parties made common cause for the
extirpation of all sects and heresies in France and the
Netherlands, and for excluding from the French throne princes
who were heretics, or who 'treated heretics with public
impunity.' ... Liberal supplies of men and money were to be
furnished to the insurgents by Philip from the moment that war
should break out. ... The Leaguers lost no time in seeking for
their enterprise the all-important sanction of the Holy See.
For this purpose they despatched as their envoy to Rome a
Jesuit named Claude Matthieu. ... The Jesuit fraternity in
France had embraced with passionate ardour the anti-royalist
cause. ... His Holiness [Gregory XIII.], however, was cautious
and reserved. He expressed in general terms his consent to the
project of taking up arms against the heretics, and granted a
plenary indulgence to those who should aid in the holy work.
But he declined to countenance the deposition of the king by
violence. ... At length, however [September 9, 1585], Sixtus
was persuaded to fulminate a bull against the King of Navarre
and the Prince of Condé, in which ... both culprits, together
with their heirs and posterity were pronounced for ever
incapable of succeeding to the throne of France or any other
dignity; their subjects and vassals were released from their
oath of homage, and forbidden to obey them."
W. H. Jervis,
History of the Church of France,
volume 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
chapter 21.
FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.
Rapid spread of the League.
The Sixth Civil War and the Peace of Bergerac.
Anjou in the Netherlands.
The League "spread like lightning over the whole face of
France; Condé could find no footing in Picardy or even in
Poitou; Henry of Navarre was refused entrance into Bordeaux
itself; the heads of the League, the family-party of the Dukes
of Guise, Mayenne and Nemours, seemed to carry all before
them; the weak King leant towards them; the Queen Mother,
intriguing ever, succeeded in separating Anjou from the
Politiques, and began to seduce Damville. She hoped once more
to isolate the Huguenots and to use the League to weaken and
depress them. ... The Court and the League seemed to be in
perfect harmony, the King ... in a way, subscribed to the
League, though the twelve articles were considerably modified
before they were shown to him. ... The Leaguers had succeeded
in making war [called the Sixth Civil War--1577], and winning
some successes: but on their heels came the Court with fresh
negotiations for peace. The heart's desire of the King was to
crush the stubborn Huguenots and to destroy the moderates, but
he was afraid to act; and so it came about that, though Anjou
was won away from them, and compromised on the other side, and
though Damville also deserted them, and though the whole party
was in the utmost disorder and seemed likely to disperse,
still the Court offered them such terms that in the end they
seemed to have even recovered ground. Under the walls of
Montpellier, Damville, the King's general, and Chatillon, the
Admiral's son, at the head of the Huguenots, were actually
manœuvring to begin a battle, when La Noue came up bearing
tidings of peace, and at the imminent risk of being shot
placed himself between the two armies, and stayed their
uplifted hands. It was the Peace of Bergerac [confirmed by the
Edict of Poitiers--Sept. 17, 1577], another ineffectual truce,
which once more granted in the main what that of Chastenoy [or
the 'Peace of Monseur'] had already promised: it is needless
to say that the League would have none of it; and
partisan-warfare, almost objectless, however oppressive to the
country, went on without a break: the land was overrun by
adventurers and bandits, sure sign of political death. Nothing
could be more brutalising or more brutal: but the savage
traits of civil war are less revolting than the ghastly
revelries of the Court. All the chiefs were alike--neither the
King, nor Henry of Navarre, nor Anjou, nor even the strict
Catholic Guise, disdained to wallow in debauch." Having
quarreled with his brother, the King, "Anjou fled, in the
beginning of 1578, to Angers, where, finding that there was a
prospect of amusement in the Netherlands, he turned his back
on the high Catholics, and renewed friendship with the
Huguenot chiefs. He was invited to come to the rescue of the
distressed Calvinists in their struggle against Philip, and
appeared in the Netherlands in July 1578."
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, and 1581-1584.
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 2, pages 370-373.
FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.
Treaty of Nérac.
The Seventh Civil War, known as the War of the Lovers.
The Peace of Fleix.
"The King, instead of availing himself of this interval of
repose [after the Peace of Bergerac] to fortify himself
against his enemies, only sank deeper and deeper into vice and
infamy. ... The court resembled at once a slaughter-house and
a brothel, although, amid all this corruption, the King was
the slave of monks and Jesuits whom he implicitly obeyed. It
was about this time (December 1578) that he instituted the
military order of the Holy Ghost, that of St. Michael having
fallen into contempt through being prostituted to unworthy
objects. Meanwhile the Guises were using every effort to
rekindle the war, which Catherine, on the other hand, was
endeavouring to prevent. With this view she travelled, in
August, into the southern provinces, and had an interview with
Henry of Navarre at Nérac, bringing with her Henry's wife, her
daughter Margaret; a circumstance, however, which did not add
to the pleasure of their meeting.
{1208}
Henry received the ladies coldly, and they retired into
Languedoc, where they passed the remainder of the year.
Nevertheless the negotiations were sedulously pursued; for a
peace with the Hugonots was, at this time, indispensable to
the Court. ... In February 1579, a secret treaty was signed at
Nérac, by which the concessions granted to the Protestants by
the peace of Bergerac were much extended. ... Catherine spent
nearly the whole of the year 1579 in the south, endeavouring
to avert a renewal of the war by her intrigues, rather than by
a faithful observance of the peace. But the King of Navarre
saw through her Italian artifices, and was prepared to summon
his friends and captains at the shortest notice. The
hostilities which he foresaw were not long in breaking out,
and in a way that would seem impossible in any other country
than France. When the King of Navarre fled from Court in 1576,
he expressed his indifference for two things he had left
behind, the mass and his wife; Margaret, the heroine of a
thousand amours, was equally indifferent, and though they now
contrived to cohabit together, it was because each connived at
the infidelities of the other. Henry was in love with
Mademoiselle Fosseuse, a girl of fourteen, while Margaret had
taken for her gallant the young Viscount of Turenne, who had
lately turned Hugonot. ... The Duke of Anjou being at this
time disposed to renew his connection with the Hugonots,
Margaret served as the medium of communication between her
brother and her husband; while Henry III., with a view to
interrupt this good understanding, wrote to the king of
Navarre to acquaint him of the intrigues of his wife with
Turenne. Henry was neither surprised nor afflicted at this
intelligence; but he laid the letter before the guilty
parties, who both denied the charge, and Henry affected to
believe their protestations. The ladies of the Court of Nérac
were indignant at this act of Henry III., 'the enemy of
women'; they pressed their lovers to renew hostilities against
that discourteous monarch; Anjou added his instances to those
of the ladies; and in 1580 ensued the war called from its
origin 'la guerre des amoureux,' or war of the lovers: the
seventh of what are sometimes styled the wars of 'religion'!
The Prince of Condé, who lived on bad terms with his cousin,
had already taken the field on his own account, and in
November 1579 had seized on the little town of La Fère in
Picardy. In the spring of 1580 the Protestant chiefs in the
south unfurled their banners. The King of Navarre laid the
foundation of his military fame by the bravery he displayed at
the capture of Cahors; but on the whole the movement proved a
failure. Henry III. had no fewer than three armies in the
field, which were generally victorious, and the King of
Navarre found himself menaced in his capital of Nérac by
Marshal Biron. But Henry III., for fear of the Guises, did not
wish to press the Hugonots too hard, and at length accepted
the proffered mediation of the Duke of Anjou, who was at this
time anxious to enter on the protectorate offered to him by
the Flemings. Anjou set off for the south, accompanied by his
mother and her 'flying squadron' [of seductive nymphs];
conferences were opened at the castle of Fleix in Périgord,
and on November 26th 1580 a treaty was concluded which was
almost a literal renewal of that of Bergerac. Thus an
equivocal peace, or rather truce, was re-established, which
proved of some duration."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
Duc d'Aumale,
History of the Princes de Condé,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2).

FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
Henry of Navarre heir apparent to the throne.
Fresh hostility of the League.
The Edict of Nemours.
The Pope's Brutum Fulmen.
War of the Three Henrys.
Battle of Coutras.
The Day of Barricades at Paris.
Assassination of Guise.
Assassination of Henry III.
"The Duc d'Anjou ... died in 1584; Henri III. was a worn-out
and feeble invalid; the reports of the doctors and the known
virtue of the Queen forbad the hope of direct heirs. The King
of Navarre was the eldest of the legitimate male descendants
of Hugues Capet and of Saint-Louis [see BOURBON, HOUSE OF].
But on the one hand he was a relapsed heretic; on the other,
his relationship to the King was so distant that he could
never have been served heir to him in any civil suit. This
last objection was of small account; the stringent rules which
govern decisions in private affairs cannot be made applicable
to matters affecting the tranquillity and well-being of
nations. ... His religion was the only pretext on which
Navarre could be excluded. France was, and wished to remain,
Catholic; she could not submit to a Protestant King. The
managers of the League understood that this very wide-spread
and even strongly cherished feeling might some day become a
powerful lever, but that, in order to use it, it was very
needful for them to avoid offending the national amour-propre;
and they thought that they had succeeded in finding the means
of effecting their object. Next to Navarre, the eldest of the
Royal House was his uncle the Cardinal de Bourbon; the Guises
acknowledged him as heir to the throne and first Prince of the
Blood, under the protection of the Pope and of the King of
Spain. ... The feeble-minded old man, whom no one respected,
was a mere phantom, and could offer no serious resistance,
when it should be convenient to set him aside. ... In every
class throughout the nation the majority were anxious to
maintain at once French unity and Catholic unity, disliking
the Reformation, but equally opposed to ultramontane
pretensions and to Spanish ambition. ... But ... this great
party, already named the 'parti politique,' hung loosely
together without a leader, and without a policy. For the
present it was paralyzed by the contempt in which the King was
held; while the dislike which was entertained for the
religious opinions of the rightful heir to the throne seemed
to deprive it of all hope for the future. Henry III. stood in
need of the assistance of the King of Navarre; he would
willingly have cleared away the obstacle which kept them
apart, and he made an overture with a view to bring back that
Prince to the Catholic religion. But these efforts could not
be successful. The change of creed on the part of the Béarnais
was to be a satisfaction offered to France, the pledge of a
fresh agreement between the nation and his race, and not a
concession to the threats of enemies. He was not an
unbeliever; still less was he a hypocrite; but he was placed
between two fanatical parties, and repelled by the excesses of
both; so he doubted, honestly doubted, and as his religious
indecision was no secret, his conversion at the time of which
we are now speaking would have been ascribed to the worst
motives."
{1209}
As it was, he found it necessary to quiet disturbing rumors
with regard to the proposals of the King by permitting a plain
account of what had occurred to be made public. "Henry III.,
having no other answer to make to this publication, which
justified all the complaints of the Catholics, replied to it
by the treaty of Nemours and by the edict of July [1585].
These two acts annulled all the edicts in favour of
toleration; and placed at the disposal of the League all the
resources and all the forces of the monarchy." Soon afterwards
the Pope issued against Navarre and Condé his bull of
excommunication. By this "the Pontiff did not deprive the
Bourbons of a single friend, and did not give the slightest
fresh ardour to their opponents; but he produced a powerful
reaction among a portion of the clergy, among the magistracy,
among all the Royalists; wounded the national sensibility,
consolidated that union between the two Princes which he
wished to break off, and rallied the whole of the Reformed
party round their leaders. The Protestant pamphleteers replied
with no less vehemence, and gave to the Pontiff's bull that
name of 'Brutum fulmen' by which it is still known. ... Still
the sentence launched from the Vatican had had one very
decided result--it had fired the train of powder; war broke
out at once."
Duc d'Aumale,
History of the Princes of Condé,
book 2, chapter 1.
"The war, called from the three leading actors in it [Henry of
Valois, Henry of Navarre, and Henry of Guise] the War of the
Three Henrys, now opened in earnest. Seven powerful armies
were marshalled on the part of the King of France and the
League. The Huguenots were weak in numbers, but strong in the
quality of their troops. An immense body of German 'Reiter'
had been enrolled to act as an auxiliary force, and for some
time had been hovering on the frontiers. Hearing that at last
they had entered France, Henry of Navarre set out from
Rochelle to effect a junction with them. The Duke of Joyeuse,
one of the French King's chief favourites, who had the charge
of the army that occupied the midland counties, resolved to
prevent their junction. By a rapid movement he succeeded in
crossing the line of Henry's march and forcing him into
action. The two armies came in front of each other on a plain
near the village of Coutras, on the 19th of October, 1587. The
Royalist army numbered from 10,000 to 12,000, the Huguenot
from 6,000 to 7,000--the usual disparity in numbers; but
Henry's skilful disposition did more than compensate for his
numerical inferiority. ... The struggle lasted but an hour,
yet within that hour the Catholic army lost 3,000 men, more
than 400 of whom were members of the first families in the
kingdom; 3,000 men were made prisoners. Not more than a third
part of their entire army escaped. The Huguenots lost only
about 200 men. ... Before night fell he [Navarre] wrote a few
lines to the French King, which run thus: 'Sire, my Lord and
Brother,--Thank God, I have beaten your enemies and your
army.' It was but too true that the poor King's worst enemies
were to be found in the very armies that were marshalled in
his name."
W. Hanna,
The Wars of the Huguenots,
chapter 6.
"The victory [at Coutras] had only a moral effect. Henry lost
time by going to lay at the feet of the Countess of Grammont
the flags taken from the enemy. Meantime the Duke of Guise,
north of the Loire, triumphed over the Germans under the Baron
of Dohna at Vimory, near Montargis, and again near Auneau
(1587). Henry III. was unskilful enough to leave to his rival
the glory of driving them out of the country. Henry III.
re-entered Paris. As he passed along, the populace cried out,
'Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands';
and a few days after, the Sorbonne decided that 'the
government could be taken out of the hands of princes who were
found incapable.' Henry III., alarmed, forbade the Duke of
Guise to come to Paris, and quartered in the faubourgs 4,000
Swiss and several companies of the guards. The Sixteen [chiefs
of sixteen sections of Paris, who controlled the League in
that city] feared that all was over; they summoned the
'Balafré' and he came [May 9, 1588]. Cries of 'Hosannah to the
Son of David!' resounded throughout Paris, and followed him to
the Louvre. ... The king and the chief of the League fortified
themselves, one in the Louvre, the other in the Hotel Guise.
Negotiations were carried on for two days. On the morning of
the 11th the duke, well attended, returned to the Louvre, and
in loud tones demanded of the king that he should send away
his counsellors, establish the Inquisition, and push to the
utmost the war against the heretics. That evening the king
ordered the companies of the city guards to hold several
positions, and the next morning he introduced into the city
the Swiss and 2,000 men of the French guards. But the city
guards failed him. In two hours all Paris was under arms, all
the streets were rendered impassable, and the advancing
barricades soon reached the positions occupied by the troops
[whence the insurrection became known as 'the Day of
Barricades']. At this juncture Guise came out of his hôtel,
dressed in a white doublet, with a small cane in his hand;
saved the Swiss, who were on the point of being massacred,
sent them back to the king with insulting scorn, and quieted
everything as if by magic. He demanded the office of
lieutenant-general of the kingdom for himself, the convocation
of the States at Paris, the forfeiture of the Bourbons, and,
for his friends, provincial governments and all the other
offices. The queen-mother debated these conditions for three
hours. During this time the attack was suspended, and Henry
III. was thus enabled to leave the Louvre and make his escape.
The Duke of Guise had made a mistake; but if he did not have
the king, he had Paris. There was now a king of Paris and a
king of France; negotiations were carried on, and to the
astonishment of all, Henry III. at length granted what two
months before he had refused in front of the barricades. He
swore that he would not lay down his arms until the heretics
were entirely exterminated; declared that any non-Catholic
prince forfeited his rights to the throne, appointed the Duke
of Guise lieutenant-general, and convoked the States at Blois
[October, 1588]. The States of Blois were composed entirely of
Leaguers," and were wholly controlled by the Duke of Guise.
The latter despised the king too much to give heed to repeated
warnings which he received of a plot against his life.
{1210}
Summoned to a private interview in the royal cabinet, at an
early hour on the morning of the 23d of December, he did not
hesitate to present himself, boldly, alone, and was murdered
as he entered, by eight of the king's body-guard, whom Henry
III. had personally ordered to commit the crime. "Killing the
Duke of Guise was not killing the League. At the news of his
death Paris was stunned for a moment; then its fury broke
forth. ... The Sorbonne decreed 'that the French people were
set free from the oath of allegiance taken to Henry III.' ...
Henry III. had gained nothing by the murder; ... but he had
helped the fortunes of the king of Navarre, into whose arms he
was forced to cast himself. ... The junction of the Protestant
and the royal armies under the same standard completely
changed the nature of the war. It was no longer feudal
Protestantism, but the democratic League, which threatened
royalty; monarchy entered into a struggle with the Catholic
masses in revolt against it. Henry III. called together, at
Tours, his useless Parliament, and issued a manifesto against
Mayenne and the chiefs of the League. Henry of Navarre carried
on the war energetically. In two months he was master of the
territory between the Loire and the Seine, and 15,000 Swiss
and lanzknechts joined him. On the evening of July 30th, 1589,
the two kings, with 40,000 men, appeared before Paris. The
Parisians could see the long line of the enemies' fires
gleaming in a vast semi-circle on the left bank of the Seine.
The king of Navarre established his headquarters at Meudon;
Henry III. at Saint-Cloud. The great city was astounded; the
people had lost energy; but the fury was concentrated in the
hearts of the chiefs and in the depths of the cloisters. ...
The arm of a fanatic became the instrument of the general
fury, and put into practice the doctrine of tyrannicide more
than once asserted in the schools and the pulpit. The assault
was to be made on August 2d. On the morning of the previous
day a young friar from the convent of the Dominicans, Jacques
Clément, came out from Paris," obtained access to the king by
means of a forged letter, and stabbed him in the abdomen,
being, himself, slain on the spot by the royal guards. Henry
III. "died the same night, and with him the race of Valois
became extinct. The aged Catherine de' Medici had died six
months before."
V. Duruy,
History of France (abridged),
chapter 45.
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy in France,
16th and 17th Centuries, chapters 22-25.
W. S. Browning,
History of the Huguenots,
chapters 35-42.
FRANCE: A. D. 1585.
Proffered sovereignty of the United Netherlands declined by
Henry III.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.
Henry of Navarre as Henry IV. of France.
His retreat to Normandy.
The battles at Arques.
Battle of Ivry.
"On being made aware that all hope was over, this King [Henry
III.], whose life had been passed in folly, vanity and
sensuality ... prepared for death like a patriot king and a
martyr. He summoned his nobles to his bedside, and told them
that his only regret in dying was that he left the kingdom in
disorder, and as the best mode of remedying the evil he
recommended them to recognize the King of Navarre, to whom the
kingdom belonged of right; making no account of the religious
difference, because that king, with his sincere and earnest
nature, must finally return to the bosom of the Church. Then
turning to Henry, he solemnly warned him: 'Cousin,' he said,
'I assure you that you will never be King of France if you do
not become Catholic, and if you do not make your peace with
the Church.' Directly afterwards he breathed his last,
reciting the 'Miserere.' This account is substantially
confirmed by Perefixe. According to Sully, Henry, hearing that
the King had been stabbed, started for St. Cloud, attended by
Sully, but did not arrive till he was dead; and D'Aubigny
says: 'When the King of Navarre entered the chamber where the
body was lying, he saw amidst the howlings some pulling their
hats down upon their brows, or throwing them on the ground,
clenching their fists, plotting, clasping each other's hands,
making vows and promises.' ... Henry's situation was
embarrassing in the extreme, for only a small number of the
Catholic nobles gave in an unqualified adhesion: a powerful
body met and dictated the conditions upon which alone they
would consent to his being proclaimed King of France: the two
first being that within six months he would cause himself to
be instructed in the Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith; and that
during this interval he would nominate no Huguenot to offices
of State. He replied that he was no bigot, and would readily
seek instruction in the tenets of the Romish faith, but
declined pledging himself to any description of exclusion or
intolerance. M. Guadet computes that nine-tenths of his French
subjects were Catholic, and the temper of the majority may be
inferred from what was taking place in Paris, where the news
of the late King's death was the signal for the most unseemly
rejoicing. ... Far from being in a condition to reduce the
refractory Parisians, Henry was obliged to abandon the siege,
and retire towards Normandy, where the expected succours from
England might most easily reach him. Sully says that this
retreat was equally necessary for the safety of his person and
the success of his affairs. He was temporarily abandoned by
several of the Huguenot leaders, who, serving at their own
expense, were obliged from time to time to go home to recruit
their finances and their followers. Others were made lukewarm
by the prospect of his becoming Catholic; so that he was no
longer served with enthusiasm by either party; and when, after
making the best arrangements in his power, he entered
Normandy, he had with him only 3,000 French foot, two
regiments of Swiss and 1,200 horse; with which, after being
joined by the Due de Montpensier with 200 gentlemen and 1,500
foot, he drew near to Rouen, relying on a secret understanding
within the walls which might give him possession of the place.
Whilst preparations were making for the siege, sure
intelligence was brought that the Duc de Mayenne was seeking
him with an army exceeding 30,000; but, resolved to make head
against them till the last extremity, Henry entrenched himself
before Arques, which was only accessible by a causeway." A series
of engagements ensued, beginning September 15, 1589; but
finding that he could not dislodge his antagonist, Mayenne
withdrew after some ten days of fighting, moving his army
towards Picardy and leaving the road to Paris open. "Being too
weak to recommence the siege or to occupy the city if taken by
assault, Henry resolved to give the Parisians a sample of what
they might expect if they persevered in their contumacy, and
gave orders for attacking all the suburbs at once.
{1211}
They were taken and sacked. Davila states that the plunder was
so abundant that the whole camp was wonderfully relieved and
sustained." From this attack on the Parisian suburbs, Henry
proceeded to Tours, where he held his court for a time. Early
in March, 1590, he laid siege to Dreux. "The Duc de Mayenne,
reinforced by Spanish troops from the Low Countries under
Count Egmont, left Paris to effect a diversion, and somewhat
unexpectedly found himself compelled to accept the battle
which was eagerly pressed upon him. This was the renowned
battle of Ivry. The armies presented much the same contrast as
at Coutras. The numerical superiority on one side, the
Catholic, was more than compensated by the quality of the
troops on the other. Henry's soldiers, as described by De
Thou, were armed to the teeth. 'They displayed neither scarf
nor decoration, but their accoutrements inspired grim terror.
The army of the Duc, on the contrary, was magnificent in
equipment. The officers wore bright-coloured scarves, while
gold glittered upon their helmets and lances.' The two armies
were confronted on the 13th of March, 1590, but it was getting
dark before the dispositions were completed, and the battle
was deferred till the following morning. The King passed the
night like Henry V. at Agincourt, and took only a short rest
in the open air on the field. ... At daybreak he mounted his
horse, and rode from rank to rank, pausing from time to time
to utter a brief exhortation or encouragement. Prayers were
offered up by the Huguenot ministers at the head of each
division, and the bishop [Perefixe] gives the concluding words
of that in which Divine aid was invoked by the King: 'But,
Lord, if it has pleased Thee to dispose otherwise, or Thou
seest that I ought to be one of those kings whom Thou
punishest in Thy wrath, grant that I may be this day the
victim of Thy Holy will: so order it that my death may deliver
France from the calamities of war, and that my blood be the
last shed in this quarrel.' Then, putting on his helmet with
the white plume, before closing the vizor, he addressed the
collected leaders:--'My friends, if you share my fortune this
day, I also share yours. I am resolved to conquer or to die
with you. Keep your ranks firmly, I beg; if the heat of the
combat compels you to quit them, think always of the rally; it
is the gaining of the battle. You will make it between the
three trees which you see there [pointing to three pear-trees
on an eminence], and if you lose your ensigns, pennons and
banners, do not lose sight of my white plume: you will find it
always on the road of honour and victory.' It so chanced that his
white plume was the actual rallying-point at the most critical
moment. ... His standard-bearer fell: a page bearing a white
pennon was struck down at his side; and the rumour was
beginning to spread that he himself was killed, when the sight
of his bay horse and white plume, with the animating sound of
his voice, gave fresh courage to all around and brought the
bravest of his followers to the front. The result is told in
one of his own missives. After stating that the battle began
between 11 and 12, he continues: 'In less than an hour, after
having discharged all their anger in two or three charges
which they made and sustained, all their cavalry began to
shift for themselves, abandoning their infantry, which was
very numerous. Seeing which, their Swiss appealed to my pity
and surrendered--colonels, captains, soldiers, and colours.
The lansquenets and French had no time to form this
resolution, for more than 1,200 were cut to pieces, and the
rest dispersed into the woods at the mercy of the peasants.'
He urged on the pursuers, crying 'Spare the French, and down
with the foreigners.' ... Instead of pushing on towards Paris,
which it was thought would have opened its gates to a
conqueror in the flush of victory, Henry lingered at Mantes,
where he improvised a Court, which his female favourites were
summoned to attend."
Henry IV. of France
(Quarterly Review, October, 1879).
ALSO IN:
H. M. Baird,
The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
chapter 11 (volume 2).
Duke of Sully,
Memoirs,
book 3 (volume l).
G. P. R. James,
Life of Henry IV.,
books 11-12 (volume 2).
FRANCE: A. D. 1590.
The siege of Paris and its horrors.
Relief at the hands of the Spaniards under Parma.
Readiness of the League to give the crown to Philip II.
"The king, yielding to the councils of Biron and other
catholics, declined attacking the capital, and preferred
waiting the slow, and in his circumstances eminently
hazardous, operations of a regular siege. ... Whatever may
have been the cause of the delay, it is certain that the
golden fruit of victory was not plucked, and that although the
confederate army had rapidly dissolved, in consequence of
their defeat, the king's own forces manifested as little
cohesion. And now began that slow and painful siege, the
details of which are as terrible, but as universally known, as
those of any chapters in the blood-stained history of the
century. Henry seized upon the towns guarding the rivers Seine
and Marne, twin nurses of Paris. By controlling the course of
those streams as well as that of the Yonne and Oise--
especially by taking firm possession of Lagny on the Marne,
whence a bridge led from the Isle of France to the Brie
country--great thoroughfare of wine and corn--and of Corbeil
at the junction of the little river Essonne with the Seine--it
was easy in that age to stop the vital circulation of the
imperial city. By midsummer, Paris, unquestionably the first
city of Europe at that day, was in extremities. ... Rarely
have men at any epoch defended their fatherland against
foreign oppression with more heroism than that which was
manifested by the Parisians of 1590 in resisting religious
toleration, and in obeying a foreign and priestly despotism.
Men, women, and children cheerfully laid down their lives by
thousands in order that the papal legate and the king of Spain
might trample upon that legitimate sovereign of France who was
one day to become the idol of Paris and of the whole kingdom.
A census taken at the beginning of the siege had showed a
population of 200,000 souls, with a sufficiency of provisions,
it was thought, to last one month. But before the terrible
summer was over--so completely had the city been invested--the
bushel of wheat was worth 360 crowns. ... The flesh of horses,
asses, dogs, cats, rats, had become rare luxuries. There was
nothing cheap, said a citizen bitterly, but sermons. And the
priests and monks of every order went daily about the streets,
preaching fortitude in that great resistance to heresy. ...
Trustworthy eye-witnesses of those dreadful days have placed
the number of the dead during the summer at 30,000. ...
{1212}
The hideous details of the most dreadful sieges recorded in
ancient or modern times were now reproduced in Paris. ... The
priests ... persuaded the populace that it was far more
righteous to kill their own children, if they had no food to
give them, than to obtain food by recognizing a heretic king.
It was related, too, and believed, that in some instances
mothers had salted the bodies of their dead children and fed
upon them, day by day, until the hideous repast would no
longer support their own life. ... The bones of the dead were
taken in considerable quantities from the cemeteries, ground
into flour, baked into bread, and consumed. It was called
Madame Montpensier's cake, because the duchess earnestly
proclaimed its merits to the poor Parisians. 'She was never
known to taste it herself, however,' bitterly observed one who
lived in Paris through that horrible summer. She was right to
abstain, for all who ate of it died. ... Lansquenets and other
soldiers, mad with hunger and rage, when they could no longer
find dogs to feed on, chased children through the streets, and
were known in several instances to kill and devour them on the
spot. ... Such then was the condition of Paris during that
memorable summer of tortures. What now were its hopes of
deliverance out of this Gehenna? The trust of Frenchmen was in
Philip of Spain, whose legions, under command of the great
Italian chieftain [Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma, commander
of the Spanish forces in the Netherlands], were daily longed
for to save them from rendering obedience to their lawful
prince. For even the king of straw--the imprisoned cardinal
[Cardinal de Bourbon, whom the League had proclaimed king,
under the title of Charles X., on the death of Henry
III.]--was now dead, and there was not even the effigy of any
other sovereign than Henry of Bourbon to claim authority in
France. Mayenne, in the course of long interviews with the
Duke of Parma at Condé and Brussels, had expressed his desire
to see Philip king of France, and had promised his best
efforts to bring about such a result." Parma, who was
struggling hard with the obstinate revolt in the Netherlands,
having few troops and little money to pay them with, received
orders from his Spanish master to relieve Paris and conquer
France. He obeyed the command to the best of his abilities. He
left the Netherlands at the beginning of August, with 12,000
foot and 3,000 horse; effected a junction with Mayenne at
Meaux, ten leagues from Paris, on the 22d, and the united
armies--5,000 cavalry and 18,000 foot--arrived at Chelles on
the last day of summer. "The two great captains of the age had
at last met face to face. ... The scientific duel which was
now to take place was likely to task the genius and to bring
into full display the peculiar powers and defects of the two."
The winner in the duel was the Duke of Parma, who foiled
Henry's attempts to bring him to battle, while he captured
Lagny under the king's eyes. "The bridges of Charenton and St.
Maur now fell into Farnese's hands without a contest. In an
incredibly short space of time provisions and munitions were
poured into the starving city, 2,000 boat-loads arriving in a
single day. Paris was relieved. Alexander had made his
demonstration and solved the problem. ... The king was now in
worse plight than ever. His army fliers, cheated of their
battle, and having neither food nor forage, rode off by
hundreds every day." He made one last attempt, by a midnight
assault on the city, but it failed. Then he followed the
Spaniards--whom Parma led back to the Netherlands early in
November--but could not bring about a battle or gain any
important advantage. But Paris, without the genius of
Alexander Farnese in its defence, was soon reduced to as
complete a blockade as before. Lagny was recovered by the
besieging royalists, the Seine and the Marne were again
fast-locked, and the rebellious capital deprived of supplies.
J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapter 23 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
M. W. Freer,
History of the Reign of Henry IV.,
book 1.
C. D. Yonge,
History of France under the Bourbons,
chapter 2.
FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
The siege of Rouen and Parma's second interference.
General advancement of Henry's cause.
Restiveness of the Catholics.
The King's abjuration of Protestantism.
"It seemed as if Henri IV. had undertaken the work of
Penelope. After each success, fresh difficulties arose to
render it fruitless. ... Now it was the Swiss who refused to
go on without their pay; or Elizabeth who exacted seaports in
return for fresh supplies; or the Catholics who demanded the
conversion of the King; or the Protestants who complained of
not being protected. Depressed spirits had to be cheered, some
to be satisfied, others to be reassured or restrained, allies
to be managed, and all to be done with very little money and
without any sacrifice of the national interests. Henri was
equal to all, both to war and to diplomacy, to great concerns
and to small. ... His pen was as active as his sword. The
collection of his letters is full of the most charming notes.
... Public opinion, which was already influential and
thirsting for news, was not neglected. Every two or three
months a little publication entitled 'A Discourse,' or 'An
Authentic Narrative,' or 'Account of all that has occurred in
the King's Army,' was circulated widely. ... Thus it was that
by means of activity, patience, and tact, Henri V. was enabled
to retrieve his fortunes and to rally his party; so that by
the end of the year 1591, he found himself in a position to
undertake an important operation. ... The King laid siege to
Rouen in December, 1591. He was at the head of the most
splendid army he had ever commanded; it numbered upwards of
25,000 men. This was not too great a number; for the
fortifications were strong, the garrison numerous, well
commanded by Villars, and warmly supported by the townspeople.
The siege had lasted for some months when the King learned
that Mayenne had at last made the Duke of Parma to understand
the necessity of saving Rouen at all hazards. Thirty thousand
Spanish and French Leaguers had just arrived on the Somme.
Rouen, however, was at the last gasp; Henri could not make up
his mind to throw away the fruits of so much toil and trouble;
he left all his infantry under the walls, under the command of
Biron, and marched off with his splendid cavalry." He attacked
the enemy imprudently, near Aumale, February 5, met with a
repulse, was wounded and just missed being taken prisoner in a
precipitate retreat. But both armies were half paralyzed at this
time by dissensions among their chiefs.
{1213}
That of the Leaguers fell back to the Somme; but in April it
approached Rouen again, and Parma was able, despite all
Henri's efforts, to enter the town. This last check to the
King "was the signal for a general desertion. Henri, left with
only a small corps of regular troops and a few gentlemen, was
obliged to retire rapidly upon Pont de l'Arche. The Duke of
Parma did not follow him. Always vigilant, he wished before
everything to establish himself on the Lower Seine, and laid
siege to Caudebec, which was not likely to detain him long.
But he received during that operation a severe wound, which
compelled him to hand over the command to Mayenne." The
incompetence of the latter soon lost all the advantages which
Parma had gained. Henri's supporters rallied around him again
almost as quickly as they had dispersed. "The Leaguers were
pushed back upon the Seine and confined in the heart of the
Pays de Caux. They were without provisions; Mayenne was at his
wits' end; he had to resort for suggestions and for orders to
the bed of suffering on which the Duke of Parma was held down
by his wound." The great Italian soldier, dying though he was,
as the event soon proved, directed operations which baffled
the keen watchfulness and penetration of his antagonist, and
extricated his army without giving to Henri the chance for
battle which he sought. The Spanish army retired to Flemish
territory. In the meantime, Henri's cause was being advanced
in the northeast of his kingdom by the skill and valor of
Turenne, then beginning his great career, and experiencing
vicissitudes in the southeast, where Lesdiguières was
contending with the mercenaries of the Pope and the Duke of
Savoy, as well as with his countrymen of the League. He had
defeated them with awful slaughter at Pontcharra, September
19, 1591, and he carried the war next year into the
territories of the Duke of Savoy, seeking help from the
Italian Waldenses which he does not seem to have obtained.
"Nevertheless the king had still some formidable obstacles to
overcome. Three years had run their course since he had
promised to become instructed in the Catholic religion, and
there were no signs as yet that he was preparing to fulfil
this undertaking. The position in which he found himself, and
the importance and activity of his military operations, had
hitherto been a sufficient explanation of his delay. But the
war had now changed its character. The King had gained
brilliant successes. There was no longer any large army in the
field against him. Nothing seemed to be now in the way to
hinder him from fulfilling his promise. And yet he always
evaded it. He had to keep on good terms with Elizabeth and the
Protestants; he wished to make his abjuration the occasion for
an agreement with the Court of Rome, which took no steps to
smooth over his difficulties; and lastly, he shrank from
taking a step which is always painful when it is not the fruit
of honest conviction. This indecision doubled the ardour of
his enemies, prevented fresh adhesions, discouraged and
divided his old followers. ... A third party, composed of
bishops and Royalist noblemen, drew around the cousins of
Henri IV., the Cardinal de Vendôme and the Comte de Soissons.
... The avowed object of this third party was to raise one of
these two Princes to the throne, if the Head of their House
did not forthwith enter the bosom of the Catholic Church. And
finally, the deputies of the cities and provinces who had been
called to Paris by Mayenne were assembling there for the
election of a king. 'The Satire of Ménippée' has handed down
the States of the League to immortal ridicule; but however
decried that assembly has been, and deserved to be, 'it
decided the conversion of Henri IV.: he does not attempt in
his despatches to deny this. ... In order to take away every
excuse for such an election, he entered at once into
conference with the Catholic theologians. After some very
serious discussion, much deeper than a certain saying which
has become a proverb [that 'Paris is certainly worth a Mass']
would seem to imply, he abjured the Protestant religion on the
25th of July, 1593, before the Archbishop of Bourges. The
League had received its death-blow."
Duc d'Aumale,
History of the Princes de Condé,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).
"The news of the abjuration produced in the minds of honest
men, far and near, the most painful impression. Politicians
might applaud an act intended to conciliate the favor of the
great majority of the nation, and extol the astuteness of the
king in choosing the most opportune moment for his change of
religion--the moment when he would secure the support of the
Roman Catholics, fatigued by the length of the war and too
eager for peace to question very closely the sincerity of the
king's motives, without forfeiting the support of the
Huguenots. But men of conscience, judging Henry's conduct by a
standard of morality immutable and eternal, passed a severe
sentence of condemnation upon the most flagrant instance of a
betrayal of moral convictions which the age had known."
H. M. Baird,
The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
chapter 13 (volume 2).
"What the future history of France would have been if Henry
had clung to his integrity, is known only to the Omniscient;
but, with the annals of France in our hands, we have no
difficulty in perceiving that the day of his impious, because
pretended conversion, was among the 'dies nefasti' of his
country. It restored peace indeed to that bleeding land, and
it gave to himself an undisputed reign of seventeen years; but
he found them years replete with cares and terrors, and
disgraced by many shameful vices, and at last abruptly
terminated by the dagger of an assassin. It rescued France,
indeed, from the evils of a disputed succession, but it
consigned her to two centuries of despotism and misgovernment.
It transmitted the crown, indeed, to seven in succession of
the posterity of Henry; but of them one died on the scaffold,
three were deposed by insurrections of their subjects, one has
left a name pursued by unmitigated and undying infamy, and
another lived and died in a monastic melancholy, the feeble
slave of his own minister."
Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 16.
ALSO IN:
P. F. Willert,
Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots of France,
chapters 5-6.
{1214}
FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
Henry's winning of Paris.
The first attempt upon his life.
Expulsion of Jesuits from Paris.
War with Spain.
The Peace of Vervins.
"A truce of three months had been agreed upon [August 1,
1593], during which many nobles and several important towns
made their submissions to the King. Many, however, still held
out for the League, and among them Paris, as well as Rheims,
by ancient usage the city appropriated to the coronation of
the kings of France. Henry IV. deemed that ceremony
indispensable to sanctify his cause in the eyes of the people,
and he therefore caused it to be performed at Chartres by the
bishop of that place, February 27th 1594. But he could hardly
look upon himself as King of France so long as Paris remained
in the hands of a faction which disputed his right, and he
therefore strained every nerve to get possession of that
capital. ... As he wished to get possession of the city
without bloodshed, he determined to attempt it by corrupting
the commandant. This was Charles de Cossé, Count of Brissac.
... Henry promised Brissac, as the price of his admission into
Paris, the sum of 200,000 crowns and an annual pension of
20,000, together with the governments of Corbeil and Mantes,
and the continuance to him of his marshal's bâton. To the
Parisians was offered an amnesty from which only criminals
were to be excepted; the confirmation of all their privileges;
and the prohibition of the Protestant worship within a radius
of ten leagues. ... Before daybreak on the morning of the 22nd
March 1594 Brissac opened the gates of Paris to Henry's
troops, who took possession of the city without resistance,
except at one of the Spanish guard-houses, where a few
soldiers were killed. When all appeared quiet, Henry himself
entered, and was astonished at being greeted with joyous
cheers. ... He gave manifold proofs of forbearance and good
temper, fulfilled all the conditions of his agreement, and
allowed the Spaniards [4,000] to withdraw unmolested." In May,
1594, Henry laid siege to Laon, which surrendered in August.
"Its' example was soon followed by Chateau Thierry, Amiens,
Cambrai and Noyon. The success of the King induced the Duke of
Lorraine and the Duke of Guise to make their peace with him." In
November, an attempt to kill the King was made by a young man
named Jean Chatel, who confessed that he attended the schools
of the Jesuits. "All the members of that order were arrested,
and their papers examined. One of them, named Jean Guignard,
on whom was found a treatise approving the murder of Henry
III., and maintaining that his successor deserved a like fate,
was condemned to the gallows: and the remainder of the order
were banished from Paris, January 8th 1595, as corrupters of
youth and enemies of the state. This example, however, was
followed only by a few of the provincial cities. The
irritation caused by this event seems to have precipitated
Henry IV. into a step which he had been some time meditating:
a declaration of war against his ancient and most bitter enemy
Philip II. (January 17th 1595). The King of Spain, whom the
want of money had prevented from giving the League much
assistance during the two preceding years, was stung into fury
by this challenge; and he immediately ordered Don Fernando de
Velasco, constable of Castile, to join Mayenne in Franche
Comté with 10,000 men. Velasco, however, was no great captain,
and little of importance was done. The only action worth
mentioning is an affair of cavalry at Fontaine Française (June
6th 1595), in which Henry displayed his usual bravery, or
rather rashness, but came off victorious. He then overran
nearly all Franche Comté without meeting with any impediment
from Velasco, but retired at the instance of the Swiss, who
entreated him to respect the neutrality of that province.
Meanwhile Henry had made advances to Mayenne, who was
disgusted with Velasco and the Spaniards, and on the 25th
September Mayenne, in the name of the League, signed with the
King a truce of three months, with a view to regulate the
conditions of future submission. An event had already occurred
which placed Henry in a much more favourable position with his
Roman Catholic subjects; he had succeeded [September, 1595] in
effecting his reconciliation with the Pope. ... The war on the
northern frontiers had not been going on so favourably for the
King." In January, 1595, "Philip II. ordered the Spaniard
Fuentés, who, till the arrival of Albert [the Archduke],
conducted the government of the Netherlands, to invade the
north of France; and Fuentés ... having left Mondragone with
sufficient forces to keep Prince Maurice in check, set off
with 15,000 men, with the design of recovering Cambrai.
Catelet and Doullens yielded to his arms; Ham was betrayed to
him by the treachery of the governor, and in August Fuentés
sat down before Cambrai. ... The Duke of Anjou had made over
that place to his mother, Catherine de'Medici, who had
appointed Balagni to be governor of it. During the civil wars
of France, Balagni had established himself there as a little
independent sovereign, and called himself Prince of Cambrai;
but after the discomfiture of the League he had been compelled
to declare himself, and had acknowledged his allegiance to the
King of France. His extortion and tyranny having rendered him
detested by the inhabitants, they ... delivered Cambrai to the
Spaniards, October 2nd. Fuentés then returned into the
Netherlands. ... The Cardinal Archduke Albert arrived at
Brussels in February 1596, when Fuentés resigned his command.
... Henry IV. had been engaged since the winter in the siege
of La Fère, a little town in a strong situation at the
junction of the Serre and Oise. He had received reinforcements
from England as well as from Germany and Holland. ... Albert
marched to Valenciennes with about 20,000 men, with the avowed
intention of relieving La Fère; but instead of attempting that
enterprise, he despatched De Rosne, a French renegade ... with
the greater part of the forces, to surprise Calais; and that
important place was taken by assault, April 17th, before Henry
could arrive for its defence. La Fère surrendered May 22nd;
and Henry then marched with his army towards the coast of
Picardy, where he endeavoured, but in vain, to provoke the
Spaniards to give him battle. After fortifying Calais and
Ardres, Albert withdrew again into the Netherlands. ...
Elizabeth, alarmed at the occupation by the Spaniards of a
port which afforded such facilities for the invasion of
England, soon afterwards concluded another offensive and
defensive alliance with Henry IV. (May 24th), in which the
contracting parties pledged themselves to make no separate
peace or truce with Philip II." The Dutch joined in this
treaty; but the Protestant princes of Germany refused to
become parties to it. "The treaty, however, had little
effect." Early in 1597, the Spaniards dealt Henry an alarming
blow, by surprising and capturing the city of Amiens, gaining
access to it by an ingenious stratagem. But Henry recovered
the place in September, after a vigorous siege. He also put
down a rising, under the Duke de Mercœur, in Brittany,
defeating the rebels at Dinan, while his lieutenant,
Lesdiguières, in the southeast, invaded Savoy once more,
taking Maurienne, and paralyzing the hostile designs of its
Duke.
{1215}
The malignant Spanish king, suffering and near his end,
discouraged and tired of the war, now sought to make peace.
Both the Dutch and the English refused to treat with him; but
Henry IV., notwithstanding the pledges given in 1596 to his
allies, entered into negotiations which resulted in the Treaty
of Vervins, signed May 2, 1598. "By the Peace of Vervins the
Spaniards restored to France Calais, Ardres, Doullens, La
Capelle, and Le Câtelet in Picardy, and Blavet (port Louis) in
Brittany, of all their conquests retaining only the citadel of
Cambrai. The rest of the conditions were referred to the
treaty of Câteau-Cambresis, which Henry had stipulated should
form the basis of the negotiations. The Duke of Savoy was
included in the peace." While this important treaty was
pending, in April, 1598, Henry quieted the anxieties of his
Huguenot subjects by the famous Edict of Nantes.
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 3, chapters 10-11 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
Lady Jackson,
The First of the Bourbons,
volume 1, chapters 14-18,
and volume 2, chapters 1-7.
J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapters 29-35 (volume 3).
R. Watson,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
books 23-24.
FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.
The Edict of Nantes.
For the purpose of receiving the submission of the Duke of
Mercœur and the Breton insurgents, the king proceeded down the
Loire, and "reached the capital of Brittany, the commercial
city of Nantes, on the 11th of April, 1598. Two days later he
signed the edict which has come to be known as the Edict of
Nantes [and which had been under discussion for some months
with representatives of a Protestant assembly in session at
Châtellerault]. ... The Edict of Nantes is a long and somewhat
complicated document. Besides the edict proper, contained in
95 public articles, there is a further series of 56 'secret'
articles, and a 'brevet' or patent of the king, all of which
were signed on the 13th of April; and these documents are
supplemented by a second set of 23 'secret' articles, dated on
the last day of the same month. The first of these four papers
is expressly declared to be a 'perpetual and irrevocable
edict.' ... Our chief concern being with the fortunes of the
Huguenots, the provisions for the re-establishment of the
Roman Catholic worship, wherever in the course of the events
of the last 30 years that worship had been interfered with or
banished, need not claim our attention. For the benefit of the
Protestants the cardinal concession was liberty to dwell
anywhere in the royal dominions, without being subjected to
inquiry, vexed, molested, or constrained to do anything
contrary to their conscience. As respects public worship,
while perfect equality was not established, the dispositions
were such as to bring it within the power of a Protestant in
any part of the kingdom to meet his fellow-believers for the
holiest of acts, at least from time to time. To every
Protestant nobleman enjoying that extensive authority known as
'haute justice,' and to noblemen in Normandy distinguished as
possessors of 'fiefs de haubert,' the permission was granted
to have religious services on all occasions and for all comers
at their principal residence, as well as on other lands
whenever they themselves were present. Noblemen of inferior
jurisdiction were allowed to have worship on their estates,
but only for themselves and their families. In addition to
these seigniorial rights, the Protestant 'people' received
considerable accessions to the cities where they might meet
for public religious purposes. The exercise of their worship
was authorized in all cities and places where such worship had
been held on several occasions in the years 1596 and 1597, up
to the month of August; and in all places in which worship had
been, or ought to have been, established in accordance with
the Edict of 1577 [the edict of Poitiers--see above: A. D.
1577-1578], as interpreted by the Conference of Nérac and the
Peace of Fleix [see above: A. D. 1578-1580]. But in addition
to these, a fresh gift of a second city in every bailiwick and
sénéchaussée of the kingdom greatly increased the facilities
enjoyed by the scattered Huguenots for reaching the assemblies
of their fellow-believers. ... Scholars of both religions were
to be admitted without distinction of religion to all
universities, colleges, and schools throughout France. The
same impartiality was to extend to the reception of the sick
in the hospitals, and to the poor in the provision made for
their relief. More than this, the Protestants were permitted
to establish schools of their own in all places where their
worship was authorized. ... The scandal and inhumanity
exhibited in the refusal of burial to the Protestant dead, as
well in the disinterment of such bodies as had been placed in
consecrated ground, was henceforth precluded by the assignment
of portions of the public cemeteries or of new cemeteries of
their own to the Protestants. The civil equality of the
Protestants was assured by an article which declared them to
be admissible to all public positions, dignities, offices, and
charges, and forbade any other examination into their
qualifications, conduct, and morals than those to which their
Roman Catholic brethren were subjected. ... Provision was made
for the establishment of a 'chamber of the edict,' as it was
styled, in the Parliament of Paris, with six Protestants among
its sixteen counsellors, to take cognizance of cases in which
Protestants were concerned. A similar chamber was promised in
each of the parliaments of Rouen and Rennes. In Southern
France three 'chambres mi-parties' were either continued or
created, with an equal number of Roman Catholic and Protestant
judges." In the "brevet" or patent which accompanied the
edict, the king made a secret provision of 45,000 crowns
annually from the royal treasury, which was understood to be
for the support of Protestant ministers, although that purpose
was concealed. In the second series of secret articles, the
Protestants were authorized to retain possession for eight
years of the "cautionary cities" which they held under former
treaties, and provision was made for paying the garrisons.
"Such are the main features of a law whose enactment marks an
important epoch in the history of jurisprudence. ... The Edict
of Nantes was not at once presented to the parliaments; nor
was it, indeed, until early in the following year that the
Parliament of Paris formally entered the document upon its
registers. ... There were obstacles from many different
quarters to be overcome. The clergy, the parliaments, the
university, raised up difficulty after difficulty." But the
masterful will of the king bore down all opposition, and the
Edict was finally accepted as the law of the land. "On the
17th of March [1599] Henry took steps for its complete
execution throughout France, by the appointment of
commissioners--a nobleman and a magistrate from each province
--to attend to the work."
H. M. Baird,
The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,
chapter 14 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
5th series, chapter 36.
{1216}
The full text of the Edict of Nantes will be found in the
following named works:
C. Weiss,
History of French Protestant Refugees,
volume 2, appendix.
A. Maury,
Memoirs of a Huguenot Family
(J. Fontaine), appendix.
FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.
Invasion of Savoy.
Acquisition of the Department of Aisne.
Ten years of peace and prosperity.
The great works of Henry IV.
His foreign policy.
His assassination.
"One thing only the peace of Vervins left unsettled. In the
preceding troubles a small Italian appanage, the Marquisate of
Saluces, had been seized by Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy,
and remained still in his possession. The right of France to
it was not disputed, did not admit indeed of dispute; but the
Duke was unwilling to part with what constituted one of the
keys of Italy. He came to Paris in December 1599 to negotiate
the affair in person," but employed his opportunity to
intrigue with certain disaffected nobles, including the Duke
of Biron, marshal of France and governor of Burgundy. "Wearied
with delays, whose object was transparent, Henry at last had
recourse to arms. Savoy was speedily overrun with French
troops, and its chief strongholds taken. Spain was not
prepared to back her ally, and the affair terminated by
Henry's accepting in lieu of the Marquisate that part of Savoy
which now constitutes the Department of Aisne in France."
Biron, whom the King tried hard to save by repeated warnings
which were not heeded, paid the penalty of his treasonable
schemes at last by losing his head. "The ten years from 1600
to 1610 were years of tranquillity, and gave to Henry the
opportunity he had so ardently longed for of restoring and
regenerating France." He applied his energies and his active
mind to the reorganization of the disordered finances of the
kingdom, to the improvement of agriculture, to the
multiplication of industries, to the extending of commerce. He
gave the first impulse to silk culture and silk manufacture in
France; he founded the great Gobelin manufactory of tapestry
at Paris; he built roads and bridges, and encouraged canal
projects; he began the creation of a navy; he promoted the
colonization of Canada. "It was, however, in the domain of
foreign politics that Henry exhibited the acuteness and
comprehensiveness of his genius, and his marvellous powers of
contrivance, combination, execution. ... The great political
project, to the maturing of which Henry IV. devoted his
untiring energies for the last years of his life, was the
bringing of the ... half of Europe into close political
alliance, and arming it against the house of Austria, and
striking when the fit time came, such a blow at the ambition
and intolerance of that house that it might never be able to
recover. After innumerable negotiations ... he had succeeded
in forming a coalition of twenty separate States, embracing
England, the United Provinces, Denmark, Sweden, Northern
Germany, Switzerland. At last the time for action came. The
Duke of Cleves died, 25th March 1609. The succession was
disputed. One of the claimants of the Dukedom was supported by
the Emperor, another by the Protestant Princes of Germany [see
GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618]. The contest about a small German
Duchy presented the opportunity for bringing into action that
alliance which Henry had planned and perfected. In the great
military movements that were projected he was himself to take
the lead. Four French armies, numbering 100,000, were to be
launched against the great enemy of European liberty. One of
these Henry was to command; even our young Prince of Wales was
to bring 6,000 English with him, and make his first essay in arms
under the French King. By the end of April, 1610, 35,000 men
and 50 pieces of cannon had assembled at Chalons. The 20th May

was fixed as the day on which Henry was to place himself at
its head." But on the 16th of May (1610) he was struck down by
the hand of an assassin (François Ravaillac), and the whole
combination fell to pieces.
W. Hanna,
The Wars of the Huguenots,
chapter 8.
"The Emperor, the King of Spain, the Queen of France, the Duke
d'Epernon, the Jesuits, were all in turn suspected of having
instigated the crime, because they all profited by it; but the
assassin declared that he had no accomplices. ... He believed
that the King was at heart a Huguenot, and thought that in
ridding France of this monarch he was rendering a great
service to his country."
A. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, page 450.
ALSO IN:
M. W. Freer,
The Last Decade of a Glorious Reign.
Duke of Sully,
Memoirs,
volumes 2-5.
Sir N. W. Wraxall,
History of France, 1574-1610,
volume 5, chapter 7-8, and volume 6.
FRANCE: A. D. 1603-1605.
First settlements in Acadia.
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605;
and 1606-1608.
FRANCE: A. D. 1605-1616.
Champlain's explorations and settlements in the Valley of the
St. Lawrence.
See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616; 1616-1628.
FRANCE: A. D. 1610.
Accession of King Louis XIII.
FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.
The regency of Marie de Medicis.
The reign of favorites and the riot of factions.
Distractions of the kingdom.
The rise of Richelieu.
"After the death of Henry IV. it was seen how much the power,
credit, manners, and spirit of a nation frequently depend upon
a single man. This prince had by a vigorous, yet gentle
administration, kept all orders of the state in union, lulled
all factions to sleep, maintained peace between the two
religions, and kept his people in plenty. He held the balance
of Europe in his hands by his alliance, his riches, and his
arms. All these advantages were lost in the very first year of
the regency of his widow, Mary of Medicis [whom Henry had
married in 1600, the pope granting a divorce from his first
wife, Margaret of Valois]. ... Mary of Medicis ... appointed
regent [during the minority of her son, Louis XIII.], though
not mistress of the kingdom, lavished in making of creatures
all that Henry the Great had amassed to render his nation
powerful. The army he had raised to carry the war into Germany
was disbanded, the princes he had taken under his protection
were abandoned. Charles Emanuel, duke of Savoy, the new ally
of Henry IV., was obliged to ask pardon of Philip III. of
Spain for having entered into a treaty with the French king,
and sent his son to Madrid to implore the mercy of the Spanish
court, and to humble himself as a subject in his father's name.
{1217}
The princes of Germany, whom Henry had protected with an army
of 40,000 men, now found themselves almost without assistance.
The state lost all its credit abroad, and was distracted at
home. The princes of the blood and the great nobles filled
France with factions, as in the times of Francis II., Charles
IX. and Henry III., and as afterwards, during the minority of
Lewis XIV. At length [1614] an assembly of the general estates
was called at Paris, the last that was held in France [prior
to the States General which assembled on the eve of the
Revolution of 1789]. ... The result of this assembly was the
laying open all the grievances of the kingdom, without being
able to redress one. France remained in confusion, and
governed by one Concini, a Florentine, who rose to be marechal
of France without ever having drawn a sword, and prime
minister without knowing anything of the laws. It was
sufficient that he was a foreigner for the princes to be
displeased with him. Mary of Medicis was in a very unhappy
situation, for she could not share her authority with the
prince of Condé, chief of the malcontents, without being
deprived of it altogether; nor trust it in the hands of
Concini, without displeasing the whole kingdom. Henry prince
of Condé, father of the great Condé, and son to him who had
gained the battle of Coutras in conjunction with Henry IV.,
put himself at the head of a party, and took up arms. The
court made a dissembled peace with him; and afterwards clapt
him up in the Bastile. This had been the fate of his father
and grandfather, and was afterwards that of his son. His
confinement encreased the number of the male contents. The
Guises, who had formerly been implacable enemies to the Condé
family, now joined with them. The duke of Vendome, son to
Henry IV., the duke of Nevers, of the house of Gonzaga, the
marechal de Bouillon, and all the rest of the male contents,
fortified themselves in the provinces, protesting that they
continued true to their king, and made war only against the
prime minister. Concini, marechal d'Anere, secure of the queen
regent's protection, braved them all. He raised 7,000 men at
his own expense, to support the royal authority. ... A young
man of whom he had not the least apprehension, and who was a
stranger like himself, caused his ruin, and all the
misfortunes of Mary of Medicis. Charles Albert of Luines, born
in the county of Avignon, had, with his two brothers, been
taken into the number of gentlemen in ordinary to the king,
and the companions of his education. He had insinuated himself
into the good graces and confidence of the young monarch, by his
dexterity in bird-catching. It was never supposed that these
childish amusements would end in a bloody revolution. The
marechal d'Ancre had given him the government of Amboise,
thinking by that to make him his creature; but this young man
conceived the design of murdering his benefactor, banishing
the queen, and governing himself; all which he accomplished
without meeting with any obstacle. He soon found means of
persuading the king that he was capable of reigning alone,
though he was not then quite 17 years old, and told him that
the queen-mother and Concini kept him in confinement. The
young king, to whom in his childhood they had given the name
of Just, consented to the murder of his prime minister; the
marquis of Vitri, captain of the king's guards, du Hallier his
brother, Persan, and others, were sent to dispatch him, who,
finding him in the court of the Louvre, shot him dead with
their pistols [April 24, 1617]: upon this they cried out,
'Vive le roi', as if they had gained a battle, and Lewis
XIII., appearing at a window, cried out, 'Now I am king.' The
queen-mother had her guards taken from her, and was confined
to her own apartment, and afterwards banished to Blois. The
place of marechal of France, held by Concini, was given to the
marquis of Vitri, his murderer." Concini's wife, Eleanor
Galigai, was tried on a charge of sorcery and burned, "and the
king's favourite, Luines, had the confiscated estates. This
unfortunate Galigai was the first promoter of cardinal
Richelieu's fortune; while he was yet very young, and called
the abbot of Chillon, she procured him the bishopric of Luçon,
and at length got him made secretary of state in 1616. He was
involved in the disgrace of his protectors, and ... was now
banished ... to a little priory at the farther end of Anjou.
... The duke of Epernon, who had caused the queen to be
declared regent, went to the castle of Blois [February 22,
1619], whither she had been banished, and carried her to his
estate in Angoulême, like a sovereign who rescues his ally.
This was manifestly an act of high treason; but a crime that
was approved by the whole kingdom." The king presently "sought
an opportunity of reconciliation with his mother, and entered
into a treaty with the duke of Epernon, as between prince and
prince. ... But the treaty of reconciliation was hardly signed
when it was broken again; this was the true spirit of the
times. New parties took up arms in favour of the queen, and
always to oppose the duke of Luines, as before it had been to
oppose the marechal d'Ancre, but never against the king. Every
favourite at that time drew after him a civil war. Lewis and
his mother in fact made war upon each other. Mary was in Anjou
at the head of a small army against her son; they engaged each
other on the bridge of Cé, and the kingdom was on the point of
ruin. This confusion made the fortune of the famous Richelieu.
He was comptroller of the queen-mother's household, and had
supplanted all that princess's confidants, as he afterwards
did all the king's ministers. His pliable temper and bold
disposition must necessarily have acquired for him the first
rank everywhere, or have proved his ruin. He brought about the
accommodation between the mother and son; and a nomination to
the purple, which the queen asked of the king for him, was the
reward of his services. The duke of Epernon was the first to
lay down arms without making any demands, whilst the rest made
the king pay them for having taken up arms against him. The
queen-mother and the king her son had an interview at Brisac,
where they embraced with a flood of tears, only to quarrel
again more violently than ever. The weakness, intrigues, and
divisions of the court spread anarchy through the kingdom. All
the internal defects with which the state had for a long time
been attacked were now encreased, and those which Henry IV.
had removed were revived anew."
Voltaire, Ancient and Modern History,
chapter 145
(works translated by Smollett, volume 5).
ALSO IN:
C. D. Yonge,
History of France under the Bourbons,
volume 1, chapters 5-6.
A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
volume 1, chapter 7.
S. Menzies,
Royal Favourites,
volume 1, chapter 9.
{1218}
FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
Renewed jealousy of the Huguenots.
Their formidable organization and its political pretensions.
Restoration of Catholicism in Navarre and Béarn.
Their incorporation with France.
The Huguenot revolt.
Treaty of Montpelier.
"The Huguenot question had become a very serious one, and the
bigotry of some of the Catholics found its opportunity in the
insubordination of many of the Protestants. The Huguenots had
undoubtedly many minor causes for discontent. ... But on the
whole the government and the majority of the people were
willing to carry out in good faith the provisions of the edict
of Nantes. The Protestants, within the limits there laid down,
could have worshipped after their own conscience, free from
persecution and subject to little molestation. It was,
perhaps, all that could be expected in a country where the
mass of the population were Catholic, and where religious
fanaticism had recently supported the League and fostered the
wars of religion. But the Protestant party seem to have
desired a separate political power, which almost justifies the
charge made against them, that they sought to establish a
state within a state, or even to form a separate republic.
Their territorial position afforded a certain facility for
such endeavors. In the northern provinces their numbers were
insignificant. They were found chiefly in the southwestern
provinces--Poitou, Saintonge, Guienne, Provence, and
Languedoc,--while in Béarn and Navarre they constituted the
great majority of the population, and they held for their
protection a large number of strongly fortified cities. ...
Though there is nothing to show that a plan for a separate
republic was seriously considered, the Huguenots had adopted
an organization which naturally excited the jealousy and
ill-will of the general government. They had long maintained a
system of provincial and general synods for the regulation of
their faith and discipline. ... The assembly which met at
Saumur immediately after Henry's death, had carried still
further the organization of the members of their faith. From
consistories composed of the pastors and certain of the laity,
delegates were chosen who formed local consistories. These
again chose delegates who met in provincial synods, and from
them delegates were sent to the national synod, or general
assembly of the church. Here not only matters of faith, but of
state, were regulated, and the general assembly finally
assumed to declare war, levy taxes, choose generals, and act
both as a convocation and a parliament. The assembly of Saumur
added a system of division into eight great circles, covering
the territory where the Protestants were sufficiently numerous
to be important. All but two of these were south of the Loire.
They were subsequently organized as military departments, each
under the command of some great nobleman. ... The Huguenots
had also shown a willingness to assist those who were in arms
against the state, had joined Condé, and contemplated a union
with Mary de Medici in the brief insurrection of 1620. A
question had now arisen which was regarded by the majority of
the party as one of vital importance. The edict of Nantes,
which granted privileges to the Huguenots, had granted also to
the Catholics the right to the public profession of their
religion in all parts of France. This had formerly been
prohibited in Navarre and Béarn, and the population of those
provinces had become very largely Protestant. The Catholic
clergy had long petitioned the king to enforce the rights
which they claimed the edict gave them in Béarn, and to compel
also a restitution of some portion of the property, formerly
held by their church, which had been taken by Jeanne d'Albret,
and the revenues of which the Huguenot clergy still assumed to
appropriate entirely to themselves. On July 25, 1617, Louis
finally issued an edict directing the free exercise of the
Catholic worship in Béarn and the restitution to the clergy of
the property that had been taken from them. The edict met with
bitter opposition in Béarn and from all the Huguenot party.
The Protestants were as unwilling to allow the rites of the
Catholic Church in a province which they controlled, as the
Catholics to suffer a Huguenot conventicle within the walls of
Paris. The persecutions which the Huguenots suffered
distressed them less than the toleration which they were
obliged to grant. ... In the wars of religion the Huguenots
had been controlled, not always wisely or unselfishly, by the
nobles who had espoused their faith, but these were slowly
drifting back to Catholicism. ... The Condés were already
Catholics. Lesdiguières was only waiting till the bribe for
his conversion should be sufficiently glittering. [He was
received into the Church and was made Constable of France in
July, 1622.] Bouillon's religion was but a catch-weight in his
political intrigues. The grandson of Coligni was soon to
receive a marshal's baton for consenting to a peace which was
disastrous to his party. Sully, Rohan, Soubise, and La Force
still remained; but La Force's zeal moderated when he also was
made a marshal, and one hundred years later Rohans and the
descendants of Sully wore cardinal's hats. The party, slowly
deserted by the great nobles, came more under the leadership
of the clergy ... and under their guidance the party now
assumed a political activity which brought on the siege of La
Rochelle and which made possible the revocation of the edict
of Nantes. Béarn was not only strongly Protestant, but it
claimed, with Navarre, to form no part of France, and to be
governed only by its own laws. Its States met and declared
their local rights were violated by the king's edict; the
Parliament of Pau refused to register it, and it was not
enforced in the province. ... The disturbances caused by Mary
de Medici had delayed any steps for the enforcement of the
edict, but these troubles were ended by the peace of
Ponts-de-Cé in 1620. ... In October, 1620, Louis led his army
in Béarn, removed various Huguenot officials, and
reëstablished the Catholic clergy. ... On October 20th, an
edict was issued by which Navarre and Béarn were declared to
be united to France, and a parliament was established for the
two provinces on the same model as the other parliaments of
the kingdom. ... A general assembly of Protestants,
sympathizing with their brethren of these provinces, was
called for November 26, 1620, at La Rochelle. The king
declared those guilty of high treason who should join in that
meeting. ... The meeting was held in defiance of the
prohibition, and it was there resolved to take up arms. ...
The assembly proceeded in all respects like the legislative
body of a separate state.
{1219}
The king prepared for the war with vigor. ... He now led his
forces into southern France, and after some minor engagements
he laid siege to Montauban. A three months' siege resulted
disastrously; the campaign closed, and the king returned to
Paris. The encouragement that the Huguenots drew from this
success proved very brief. The king's armies proceeded again
into the south of France in 1622, and met only an irregular
and inefficient opposition. ... Chatillon and La Force each
made a separate peace, and each was rewarded by the baton of
marshal from the king and by charges of treachery from his
associates. ... The siege of Montpelier led to the peace
called by that name, but on terms that were unfavorable to the
Huguenots. They abandoned all the fortified cities which they
had held for their security except La Rochelle and Montauban;
no assemblies could meet without permission of the king,
except the local synods for ecclesiastical matters alone, and
the interests of Béarn and Navarre were abandoned. In return
the edict of Nantes was again confirmed, and their religious
privileges left undisturbed. Rohan accepted 800,000 livres for
his expenses and governments, and the king agreed that the
Fort of St. Louis, which had been built to overawe the
turbulence of La Rochelle, should be dismantled. La Rochelle,
the great Huguenot stronghold, continued hostilities for some
time longer, but at last it made terms. The party was fast
losing its power and its overthrow could be easily foretold.
La Rochelle was now the only place capable of making a
formidable resistance. ... In the meantime the career of
Luines reached its end." He had taken the great office of
Constable to himself, incurring much ridicule thereby. "The
exposures of the campaign and its disasters had worn upon him;
a fever attacked him at the little town of Monheur, and on
December 14, 1621, he died."
J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin, with a Review of the
Administration of Richelieu,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
W. S. Browning,
History of the Huguenots,
chapters 54-56.
FRANCE: A. D. 1621.
Claims in North America conflicting with England.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
Richelieu in power.
His combinations against the Austro-Spanish ascendancy.
The Valtelline War.
Huguenots again in revolt.
The second Treaty of Montpelier.
Treaty of Monzon with Spain.
"The King was once more without a guide, without a favourite,
but his fate was upon him. A few months more of uncertain
drifting and he will fall into the hands of the greatest
politician France has ever seen, Cardinal Richelieu; under his
hand the King will be effaced, his cold disposition and narrow
intelligence will accept and be convinced by the grandeur of
his master's views; convinced, he will obey, and we shall
enter on the period in which the disruptive forces in France
will be coerced, and the elements of freedom and
constitutional life stamped down; while patriotism, and a firm
belief in the destinies of the nation will be fostered and
grow strong; France will assert her high place in Europe.
Richelieu, who had already in 1622 received the Cardinal's
hat, entered the King's Council on the
29th of April, 1624. ...
[Transcriber's note: The date printed is "19/29th of
April". Wikipedia gives the date as "appointed to the royal
council of ministers on 29 April 1624, (Lodge & Ketcham,
1903, p. 85.)".]
La Vieuville, under whose patronage he had been brought
forward, welcomed him into the Cabinet. ... But La Vieuville
was not fitted by nature for the chief place; he was rash,
violent, unpopular and corrupt. He soon had to give place to
Richelieu, henceforth the virtual head of the Council. La
Vieuville, thus supplanted, had been the first to reverse the
ruinous Spanish policy of the Court; ... he had promised help
to the Dutch, to Mansfield, to the Elector Frederick; in a
word, his policy had been the forecast of that of the
Cardinal, who owed his rise to him, and now stepped nimbly
over his head into his place. England had declared war on
Spain: France joined England in renewing the old offensive and
defensive alliance with the Dutch, England promising men and
France money. ... The Austro-Spanish power had greatly
increased during these years: its successes had enabled it to
knit together all the provinces which owed it allegiance. The
Palatinate and the Lower Rhine secured their connexion with
the Spanish Netherlands, as we may now begin to call them, and
threatened the very existence of the Dutch: the Valtelline
forts [commanding the valley east of Lake Como, from which one
pass communicates with the Engadine and the Grisons, and
another with the Tyrol] ... were the roadway between the
Spanish power at Milan and the Austrians on the Danube and in
the Tyrol. Richelieu now resolved to attack this threatening
combination at both critical points. In the North he did not
propose to interfere in arms: there others should fight, and
France support them with quiet subsidies and good will. He
pressed matters on with the English, the Dutch, the North
German Princes; he negotiated with Maximilian of Bavaria and
the League, hoping to keep the South German Princes clear of
the Imperial policy. ... The French ambassador at Copenhagen,
well supported by the English envoy, Sir Robert Anstruther, at
this time organised a Northern League, headed by Christian IV.
of Denmark [see GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626]. ... The Lutheran
Princes, alarmed at the threatening aspect of affairs, were
beginning to think that they had made a mistake in leaving the
Palatinate to be conquered; and turned a more willing ear to
the French and English proposals for this Northern League. ...
By 1625 the Cardinal's plans in the North seemed to be going
well: the North-Saxon Princes, though with little heart and
much difference of opinion, specially in the cities, had
accepted Christian IV. as their leader; and the progress of
the Spaniards in the United Provinces was checked. In the
other point to which Richelieu's attention was directed,
matters had gone still better. [The inhabitants of the
Valtelline were mostly Catholics and Italians. They had long
been subject to the Protestant Grisons or Graubunden. In 1620
they had risen in revolt, massacred the Protestants of the
valley, and formed an independent republic, supported by the
Spaniards and Austrians. Spanish and German troops occupied
the four strong Valtelline forts, and controlled the important
passes above referred to. The Grisons resisted and secured the
support of Savoy, Venice and finally France. In 1623 an
agreement had been reached, to hand over the Valtelline forts
to the pope, in deposit, until some terms could be settled.
But in 1625 this agreement had not been carried out, and
Richelieu took the affair in hand.] ...
{1220}
Richelieu, never attacking in full face if he could carry his
point by a side-attack, allied himself with Charles Emmanuel,
Duke of Savoy, and with Venice; he easily persuaded the
Savoyard to threaten Genoa, the port by which Spain could
penetrate into Italy, and her financial mainstay. Meanwhile,
the Marquis of Cœuvres had been sent to Switzerland, and, late
in 1624, had persuaded the Cantons to arm for the recovery of
the Valtelline; then, heading a small army of Swiss and
French, he had marched into the Grisons. The upper districts
held by the Austrians revolted: the three Leagues declared
their freedom, the Austrian troops hastily withdrew. Cœuvres
at once secured the Tyrolese passes, and descending from the
Engadine by Poschiavo, entered the Valtelline: in a few weeks
the Papal and Spanish troops were swept out of the whole
valley, abandoning all their forts, though the French general
had no siege-artillery with which to reduce them. ... Early in
1625, the Valtelline being secured to the Grisons and French,
the aged Lesdiguières was sent forward to undertake the rest
of the plan, the reduction of Genoa. But just as things were
going well for the party in Europe opposed to Spain and
Austria, an unlucky outburst of Huguenot dissatisfaction
marred all: Soubise in the heart of winter had seized the Isle
of Ré, and had captured in Blavet harbour on the Breton coast
six royal ships; he failed however to take the castle which
commanded the place, and was himself blockaded, escaping only
with heavy loss. Thence he seized the Isle of Oléron: in May
the Huguenots were in revolt in Upper Languedoc, Querci, and
the Cevennes, led by Rohan on land, and Soubise by sea. Their
rash outbreak [provoked by alleged breaches of the treaty of
Montpelier, especially in the failure of the king to demolish
Fort Louis at La Rochelle] came opportunely to the aid of the
distressed Austrian power, their true enemy. Although very
many of the Huguenots stood aloof and refused to embarrass the
government, still enough revolted to cause great uneasiness.
The war in the Ligurian mountains was not pushed on with
vigour; for Richelieu could not now think of carrying out the
large plans which, by his own account, he had already formed,
for the erection of an independent Italy. ... He was for the
present content to menace Genoa, without a serious siege. At
this time James I. of England died, and the marriage of the
young king [Charles I.] with Henriette Marie was pushed on. In
May Buckingham went to Paris to carry her over to England; he
tried in vain to persuade Richelieu to couple the Palatinate
with the Valtelline question. ... After this the tide of
affairs turned sharply against the Cardinal; while Tilly with
the troops of the Catholic League, and Wallenstein, the new
general of the Emperor, who begins at this moment his brief
and marvellous career, easily kept in check the Danes and
their halfhearted German allies, Lesdiguières and the Duke of
Savoy were forced by the Austrians and Spaniards to give up
all thoughts of success in the Genoese country, and the French
were even threatened in Piedmont and the Valtelline. But the old
Constable of France was worthy of his ancient fame; he drove
the Duke of Feria out of Piedmont, and in the Valtelline the
Spaniards only succeeded in securing the fortress of Riva.
Richelieu felt that the war was more than France could bear,
harassed as she was within and without. ... He was determined
to free his hands in Italy, to leave the war to work itself
out in Germany, and to bring the Huguenots to reason. ... The
joint fleets of, Soubise and of La Rochelle had driven back
the king's ships, and had taken Ré and Oléron; but in their
attempt to force an entrance into the harbour of La Rochelle
they were defeated by Montmorency, who now commanded the royal
fleet: the islands were retaken, and the Huguenots sued for
peace. It must be remembered that the bulk of them did not
agree with the Rochellois, and were quiet through this time.
Early in 1626 the treaty of Montpellier granted a hollow peace
on tolerable terms to the reformed churches; and soon after ...
peace was signed with Spain at Monzon in May, 1626. All was
done so silently that the interested parties, Savoy, the
Venetians, the Grisons, knew nothing of it till all was
settled: on Buckingham ... the news fell like a thunderclap.
... The Valtelline remained under the Grisons, with guarantees
for Catholic worship; France and Spain would jointly see that
the inhabitants of the valleys were fairly treated: the Pope
was entrusted with the duty of razing the fortresses: Genoa
and Savoy were ordered to make peace. It was a treacherous
affair; and Richelieu comes out of it but ill. We are bound,
however, to remember ... the desperate straits into which the
Cardinal had come. ... He did but fall back in order to make
that wonderful leap forward which changed the whole face of
European politics."
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 4, chapters 3 and 4 (volumes 2-3).
ALSO IN:
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapters 40-41.
J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin [and Richelieu],
volume 1, chapters 4-5.
G. Masson,
Richelieu,
chapter 5.
FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628:
War with England, and Huguenot revolt.
Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
His great example of magnanimity and toleration.
The end of political Huguenotism.
"Richelieu now found himself dragged into a war against his
will, and that with the very power with which, for the
furtherance of his other designs, he most desired to continue
at peace. James I. of England had been as unable to live
except under the dominion of a favourite as Louis. Charles ...
had the same unfortunate weakness; and the Duke of Buckingham,
who had long been paramount at the court of the father,
retained the same mischievous influence at that of the son.
... In passing through France in 1623 he [Buckingham] had been
presented to the queen [Anne of Austria], and had presumed to
address her in the language of love. When sent to Paris to
conduct the young Princess Henrietta Maria to England, he had
repeated this conduct. ... There had been some little
unpleasantness between the two Courts shortly after the
marriage ... owing to the imprudence of Henrietta," who
paraded her Popery too much in the eyes of Protestant England;
and there was talk of a renewed treaty, which Buckingham
sought to make the pretext for another visit to Paris. But his
motives were understood; Louis "refused to receive him as an
ambassador, and Buckingham, full of disappointed rage,
instigated the Duke de Soubise, who was still in London, to
rouse the Huguenots to a fresh outbreak, promising to send an
English fleet to Rochelle to assist them. Rochelle was at this
time the general head-quarters not only of the Huguenots, but
of all those who, on any account, were discontented with the
Government. ...
{1221}
Soubise ... embraced the duke's offer with eagerness; and in
July, 1627, without any previous declaration of war, an
English fleet, with 16,000 men on board, suddenly appeared off
Rochelle, and prepared to attack the Isle of Rhé. The
Rochellois were very unwilling to co-operate with it"; but
they were persuaded, "against their judgment, to connect
themselves with what each, individually, felt to be a
desperate enterprise; and Richelieu, to whom the prospect thus
afforded him of having a fair pretence for crushing the
Huguenot party made amends for the disappointment of being
wantonly dragged into a war with England, gladly received the
intelligence that Rochelle was in rebellion. At first the Duke
d'Anjou was sent down to command the army, Louis being
detained in Paris by illness; but by October he had recovered,
his fondness for military operations revived, and he hastened
to the scene of action, accompanied by Richelieu, whose early
education had been of a military kind. ... He at once threw
across reinforcements into the Isle of Rhé, where M. Thoiras
was holding out a fort known as St. Martin with great
resolution, though it was unfinished and incompletely armed.
In the beginning of November, Buckingham raised the siege, and
returned home, leaving guns, standards and prisoners behind
him; and Richelieu, anticipating a renewal of the attack the
next year ... undertook a work designed at once to baffle
foreign enemies and to place the city at his mercy. Along the
whole front of the port he began to construct a vast wall ...
having only one small opening in the centre which was
commanded by small batteries. The work was commenced in
November, 1627; and, in spite of a rather severe winter, was
carried on with such ceaseless diligence, under the
superintending eye of the cardinal himself, that before the
return of spring a great portion of it was completed. ...
When, in May, 1628, the British fleet, under Lord Denbigh, the
brother-in-law of Buckingham, returned to the attack, they
found it unassailable, and returned without striking a blow."
C. D. Yonge,
History of France under the Bourbons,
volume 1, chapter 7.
"Richelieu ... was his own engineer, general, admiral,
prime-minister. While he urged on the army to work upon the
dike, he organized a French navy, and in due time brought it
around to that coast and anchored it so as to guard the dike
and be guarded by it. Yet, daring as all this work was, it was
but the smallest part of his work. Richelieu found that his
officers were cheating his soldiers in their pay and
disheartening them; in face of the enemy he had to reorganize
the army and to create a new military system. ... He found,
also, as he afterward said, that he had to conquer not only
the Kings of England and Spain, but also the King of France.
At the most critical moment of the siege Louis deserted
him,--went back to Paris,--allowed courtiers to fill him with
suspicions. Not only Richelieu's place, but his life, was in
danger, and he well knew it; yet he never left his dike and
siege-works, but wrought on steadily until they were done; and
then the King, of his own will, in very shame, broke away from
his courtiers, and went back to his master. And now a Royal
Herald summoned the people of La Rochelle to surrender. But
they were not yet half conquered. Even when they had seen two
English fleets, sent to aid them, driven back from Richelieu's
dike, they still held out manfully. ... They were reduced to
feed on their horses,--then on bits of filthy
shell-fish,--then on stewed leather. They died in multitudes.
Guiton, the Mayor, kept a dagger on the city council-table to
stab any man who should speak of surrender. ... But at last
even Guiton had to yield. After the siege had lasted more than
a year, after 5,000 were found remaining out of 15,000, after
a mother had been seen to feed her child with her own blood,
the Cardinal's policy became too strong for him. The people
yielded [October 27, 1628], and Richelieu entered the city as
master. And now the victorious statesman showed a greatness of
soul to which all the rest of his life was as nothing. ... All
Europe ... looked for a retribution more terrible than any in
history. Richelieu allowed nothing of the sort. He destroyed
the old franchises of the city, for they were incompatible
with that royal authority which he so earnestly strove to
build. But this was all. He took no vengeance,--he allowed the
Protestants to worship as before,--he took many of them into
the public service,--and to Guiton he showed marks of
respect. He stretched forth that strong arm of his over the
city, and warded off all harm. ... For his leniency Richelieu
received the titles of Pope of the Protestants and Patriarch
of the Atheists. But he had gained the first great object of
his policy, and he would not abuse it: he had crushed the
political power of the Huguenots forever."
A. D. White,
The Statesmanship of Richelieu
(Atlantic Monthly, May, 1862).
"Whatever the benefit to France of this great feat, the
locality was permanently ruined. Two hundred and fifty years
after the event the Poitevin peasant is fanatic and
superstitious as the Bretons themselves. Catholic Rochelle is
still to be seen, with almost one-third less inhabitants
to-day than it had in 1627. The cardinal's dyke is still
there, but the insects have seized on the city. A plague of
white ants, imported from India, have fastened on its
timbers."
R. Heath,
The Reformation in France,
volume 1, book 2, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603 to 1642,
chapters 56, 59-60, and 65.
FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1631.
War with Spain, Savoy and the Empire over the succession to
the duchy of Mantua.
Successes of Richelieu.
See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
FRANCE: A. D. 1628.
New France placed under the Company of the Hundred Associates.
See CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.
FRANCE: A. D. 1628-1632.
Loss and recovery of New France.
See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.
FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.
The Day of Dupes, and after.
On the return of Richelieu and the king from their Italian
expedition, in the beginning of August, 1630, "both the
monarch and his minister had passed in safety through a whole
tract infected with the plague; but, shortly after their
arrival at Lyons, Louis XIII. fell ill, and in a few days his
physicians pronounced his case hopeless. It was now that all
the hatred which his power had caused to hide its head, rose
up openly against Richelieu; and the two queens [Marie de
Medicis, the queen-mother, and Anne of Austria, the king's
wife], united only in their enmity towards the minister, never
quitted the bedside of the king but to form and cement the
party which was intended to work the cardinal's
destruction as soon as the monarch should be no more. ...
{1222}
The bold and the rash joined the faction of the queens; and
the prudent waited with wise doubt till they saw the result
they hoped for. Happy was it for those who did conceal their
feelings; for suddenly the internal abscess, which had nearly
reduced the king to the tomb, broke, passed away, and in a
very few days he appeared perfectly convalescent. Richelieu
might now have triumphed securely; ... but he acted more
prudently. He remembered that the queen-mother, the great
mover of the cabal against him, had formerly been his
benefactress; and though probably his gratitude was of no very
sensitive nature, yet he was wise enough to affect a virtue
that he did not possess, and to suffer the offence to be given
by her. ... At Paris [after the return of the court] ... the
queen-mother herself, unable to restrain any longer the
violent passions that struggled in her bosom, seemed resolved
to keep no terms with the cardinal." At an interview with him,
in the king's presence, "the queen forgot the dignity of her
station and the softness of her sex, and, in language more fit
for the markets than the court, called him rogue, and traitor,
and perturber of the public peace; and, turning to the king,
she endeavoured to persuade him that Richelieu wished to take
the crown from his head, in order to place it on that of the
count de Soissons. Had Richelieu been as sure of the king's
firmness as he was of his regard, this would have been exactly
the conduct which he could have desired the queen to hold; but
he knew Louis to be weak and timid, and easily ruled by those
who took a tone of authority towards him; and when at length
he retired at the command of the monarch ... he seems to have
been so uncertain how the whole would end, that he ordered his
papers and most valuable effects to be secured, and
preparations to be made for immediate departure. All these
proceedings had been watched by the courtiers: Richelieu had
been seen to quit the queen's cabinet troubled and gloomy, his
niece in tears; and, some time after, the king himself
followed in a state of excessive agitation, and ... left Paris
for Versailles without seeing his minister. The whole court
thought the rule of Richelieu at an end, and the saloons of
the Luxembourg were crowded with eager nobles ready to worship
the rising authority of the queen-mother." But the king, when he
reached Versailles, sent this message to his minister: "'Tell
the cardinal de Richelieu that he has a good master, and bid
him come hither to me without delay.' Richelieu felt that the
real power of France was still in his hands; and setting off
for Versailles, he found Louis full of expressions of regard
and confidence. Rumours every moment reached Versailles of the
immense concourse that was flocking to pay court to the
queen-mother: the king found himself nearly deserted, and all
that Richelieu had said of her ambition was confirmed in the
monarch's mind; while his natural good sense told him that a
minister who depended solely upon him, and who under him
exercised the greatest power in the realm, was not likely to
wish his fall. ... In the mean time, the news of these ...
events spread to Paris: the halls of the Luxembourg, which the
day before had been crowded to suffocation, were instantly
deserted; and the queen-mother found herself abandoned by all
those fawning sycophants whose confidence and disappointment
procured for the day of St. Martin, 1630, the title in French
history of The Day of Dupes."
G. P. R. James,
Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
volume 2, pages 88-92.
The ultimate outcome of The Day of Dupes was the flight of
Marie de Medicis, who spent the remainder of her life in the
Netherlands and in England; the trial and execution of Marshal
de Marillac; the imprisonment or exile and disgrace of
Bassompierre and other nobles; a senseless revolt, headed by
Gaston, Duke of Orleans, the king's brother, which was crushed
in one battle at Castlenaudari, September 1, 1632, and which
brought the Duke de Montmorency to the block.
C. D. Yonge,
History of France under the Bourbons,
volume 1, chapters 7-8.
ALSO IN:
M. W. Freer,
Married Life of Anne of Austria,
volume 1, chapter 4.
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos of English History, 6th series,
chapter 20.
Miss Pardoe,
Life of Marie de Medicis,
book 3, chapters 7-13 (volume 3).
FRANCE: A. D. 1631.
Treaty and negotiations with Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
Promotion of the Protestant Union.
See GERMANY: A.D. 1631 (JANUARY);
1631-1632; and 1632-1634.
FRANCE: A. D. 1632-1641.
War in Lorraine.
Occupation and possession of the duchy.
See LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.
FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1638.
Campaigns on the Flemish frontier.
Invasion by the Spaniards.
Paris in Peril.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1639.
Active participation in the Thirty Years War.
Treaties with the Germans, Swedes, and Dutch.
Campaigns of Duke Bernhard in Lorraine, Alsace and
Franche-Comté.
The fruit gathered by Richelieu.
Alsace secured.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
FRANCE: A. D. 1635-1642.
The war in northern Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
FRANCE: A. D. 1637-1642.
The war in Spain.
Revolt of Catalonia.
Siege and capture of Perpignan.
Conquest of Roussillon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640, and 1640-1642.
FRANCE: A. D. 1640-1645.
Campaigns in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645, and 1643-1644.
FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
The conspiracies of Count de Soissons and Cinq Mars.
Extinction of the Principality of Sedan.
"There were revolts in various quarters to resist [the yoke of
Richelieu], but they were quelled with uniform success. Once,
and once only, the fate of the Cardinal seemed finally sealed.
The Count de Soissons, a prince of the blood, headed the
discontented gentry in open war in 1641, and established the
headquarters of revolt in the town of Sedan. The Empire and
Spain came to his support with promises and money. Twelve
thousand men were under his orders, all influenced with rage
against Richelieu, and determined to deliver the king from his
degrading tutelage. Richelieu was taken unprepared; but delay
would have been ruin. He sent the Marshal Chatillon to the
borders of Sedan, to watch the proceedings of the
confederates, and requested the king to summon fresh troops
and go down to the scene of war. While his obedient Majesty
was busied in the commission, Chatillon advanced too far.
Soissons assaulted him near the banks of the Meuse, at a place
called Marfée, and gave him a total and irremediable
overthrow. The cavalry on the royalist side retreated at an
early part of the fight, and forced their way through the
infantry, not without strong suspicions of collusion with
their opponents."
{1223}
Paris itself was in dismay. The King and Cardinal expected to
hear every hour of the advance of the rebels; but no step was
taken. It was found, when the hurry of battle was over, that
Soissons was among the slain. The force of the expedition was
in that one man; and the defeat was as useful to the Cardinal
as a victory would have been. The malcontents had no leaders
of sufficient rank and authority to keep the inferiors in
check; for the scaffold had thinned the ranks of the great
hereditary chiefs, and no man could take his first open move
against the Court without imminent risk to his head. Great
men, indeed, were rising into fame, but of a totally different
character from their predecessors. Their minds were cast in a
monarchical mould from their earliest years. ... From this
time subserviency to the king became a sign of noble birth.
... Richelieu has the boast, if boast it can be called, of
having crushed out the last spark of popular independence and
patrician pride. ... One more effort was made [1642] to shake
off the trammels of the hated Cardinal. A conspiracy was
entered into to deliver the land by the old Roman method of
putting the tyrant to death; and the curious part of the
design is, that it was formed almost in presence of the king.
His favourite friend, young Cinq Mars, son of the Marshal
d'Effiat, his brother Gaston of Orleans, and his kinsman the
Duke de Bouillon, who were round his person at all hours of
the day, were the chief agents of the perilous undertaking.
Others, and with them de Thou, the son of the great French
historian, entered into the plan, but wished the assassination
to be left out. They would arrest and imprison him; but this
was evidently not enough. While Richelieu lived, no man could
be safe, though the Cardinal were in the deepest dungeon of
the Bastile. Death, however, was busy with their victim,
without their aid. He was sinking under some deep but
partially-concealed illness when the threads of the plot came
into his skilful hands. He made the last use of his strength
and intelligence in unravelling [it] and punishing the rebels,
as he called them, against the king's authority. The paltry
and perfidious Gaston was as usual penitent and pardoned, but
on Cinq Mars and de Thou the vengeance of the law and the
Cardinal had its full force. The triumphant but failing
minister reclined in a state barge upon the Rhone, towing his
prisoners behind him to certain death. On their arrival at
Lyons the process was short and fatal. The young men were
executed together, and the account of their behaviour at the
block is one of the most affecting narratives in the annals of
France."
J. White,
History of France,
chapter 12.
The Duke de Bouillon, implicated in both these
conspiracies--that of the Count de Soissons and that of Cinq
Mars--saved his life on the latter occasion by surrendering to
the crown the sovereignty of Sedan, which belonged to him, and
which had been the headquarters of the Soissons revolt. This
small independent principality--the town and a little
territory around it--had formerly been in the possession of
the powerful and troublesome family of La Marck, the last
heiress of whom brought it, together with the Duchy of
Bouillon, into the family of La Tour d'Auvergne. The Prince
and Duke who lost it was the second of that family who bore
the titles. He was the elder brother of the great soldier,
Turenne. The Principality of Sedan was extinguished from that
time.
T. O. Cockayne,
Life of Turenne.
ALSO IN:
W. Robson,
Life of Richelieu,
chapters 11-12.
M. W. Freer,
Married Life of Anne of Austria,
volume 2, chapter 3.
Miss Pardoe,
Life of Marie de Medicis,
book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3).
FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.
The death of Richelieu and of Louis XIII.
Regency of Anne of Austria.
Cardinal Mazarin and the party of the Importants.
The victory at Rocroi.
Cardinal Richelieu died on the 4th of December, 1642. "He was
dead, but his work survived him. On the very evening of the 3d
of December, Louis XIII. called to his council Cardinal
Mazarin [whom Richelieu had commended to him]. ... Scarcely
had the most powerful kings yielded up their last breath when
their wishes had been at once forgotten: Cardinal Richelieu
still governed in his grave." But now, after two and a half
centuries, "the castle of Richelieu is well-nigh destroyed;
his family, after falling into poverty, is extinct; the
Palais-Cardinal [his splendid residence, which he built, and
which he gave to the crown] has assumed the name of the
Palais-Royal; and pure monarchy, the aim of all his efforts
and the work of his whole life, has been swept away by the
blast of revolution. Of the cardinal there remains nothing but
the great memory of his power and of the services he rendered his
country. ... Richelieu had no conception of that noblest
ambition on which a human soul can feed, that of governing a
free country, but he was one of the greatest, the most
effective, and the boldest, as well as the most prudent
servants that France ever had." Louis XIII. survived his great
minister less than half a year, dying May 14, 1643. He had
never had confidence in Anne of Austria, his wife, and had
provided, by a declaration which she had signed and sworn to,
for a council (which included Mazarin) to control the queen's
regency during the minority of their son, Louis XIV. But the
queen contrived very soon to break from this obligation, and
she made Cardinal Mazarin her one counsellor and supreme
minister. "Continuing to humor all parties, and displaying
foresight and prudence, the new minister was even now master.
Louis XIII., without any personal liking, had been faithful to
Richelieu to the death. With different feelings, Anne of Austria
was to testify the same constancy towards Mazarin. A stroke of
fortune came at the very first to strengthen the regent's
position. Since the death of Cardinal Richelieu, the
Spaniards, but recently overwhelmed at the close of 1642, had
recovered courage and boldness; new counsels prevailed at the
court of Philip IV., who had dismissed Olivarez; the House of
Austria vigorously resumed the offensive; at the moment of
Louis XIII.'s death, Don Francisco de Mello, governor of the
Low Countries, had just invaded French territory by way of the
Ardennes, and laid siege to Rocroi, on the 12th of May [1643].
The French army was commanded by the young Duke of Enghien
[afterwards known as the Great Condé], the prince of Condé's
son, scarcely 22 years old; Louis XIII. had given him as his
lieutenant and director the veteran Marshal de l'Hôpital; and
the latter feared to give battle.
{1224}
The Duke of Enghien, who 'was dying with impatience to enter
the enemy's country, resolved to accomplish by address what he
could not carry by authority. He opened his heart to Gassion
alone. As he [Gassion, one of the boldest of Condé's officers]
was a man who saw nothing but what was easy even in the most
dangerous deeds, he had very soon brought matters to the point
that the prince desired. Marshal de l'Hôpital found himself
imperceptibly so near the Spaniards that it was impossible for
him any longer to hinder an engagement.' ... The army was in
front of Rocroi, and out of the dangerous defile which led to
the place, without any idea on the part of the marshal and the
army that Louis XIII. was dead. The Duke of Enghien, who had
received the news, had kept it secret. He had merely said in
the tone of a master 'that he meant to fight, and would answer
for the issue.'" The battle, which was fought May 19, 1643,
resulted in the destruction, almost total, of the Spanish
army. Of 18,000 men who formed its infantry, nearly 9,000 were
killed and 7,000 were made prisoners. The whole of the Spanish
artillery and 300 of their standards fell into the hands of
the victors, who lost, according to their own reports, only
2,000 men, killed and wounded. "'The prince was a born
captain,' said Cardinal de Retz. And all France said so with
him on hearing of the victory of Rocroi. The delight was all
the keener in the queen's circle, because the house of Condé
openly supported Cardinal Mazarin, bitterly attacked as he was
by the Importants was made up of 'those meddlers of the court at whose head
marched the Duke of Beaufort, all puffed up with the
confidence lately shown to him by her Majesty,' and all
expecting to count importantly among the queen's favorites],
who accused him of reviving the tyranny of Richelieu. ... And,
indeed, on pretext offered by a feminine quarrel [August,
1643] between the young Duchess of Longueville, daughter of
the prince of Condé, and the Duchess of Montbazon, the Duke of
Beaufort and some of his friends resolved to assassinate the
cardinal. The attempt was a failure, but the Duke of Beaufort,
who was arrested on the 2d of September, was taken to the
castle of Vincennes. Madame de Chevreuse, recently returned
[after being exiled by Richelieu] to court, where she would
fain have exacted from the queen the reward for her services
and her past sufferings, was sent into exile, as well as the
Duke of Vendôme. Madame d'Hautefort, but lately summoned by
Anne of Austria to be near her, was soon involved in the same
disgrace. ... The party of the Importants was dead, and the
power of Cardinal Mazarin seemed to be firmly established. 'It
was not the thing just then for any decent man to be on bad
terms with the court,' says Cardinal de Retz."
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapters 41-43.
"Cardinal Richelieu was not so much a minister, in the precise
sense of the word, as a person invested with the whole power
of the crown. His preponderating influence in the council
suspended the exercise of the hereditary power, without which

the monarchy must cease to exist; and it seems as if that may
have taken place in order that the social progress, violently
arrested since the last reign, might resume its course at the
instigation of a kind of dictator, whose spirit was free from
the influences which the interest of family and dynasty
exercises over the characters of kings. By a strange
concurrence of circumstances, it happened that the weak
prince, whose destiny it was to lend his name to the reign of
the great minister, had in his character, his instincts, his
good or bad qualities, all that could supply the requirements
of such a post. Louis XIII., who had a mind without energy but
not without intelligence, could not live without a master; after
having possessed and lost many, he took and kept the one, who
he found was capable of conducting France to the point, which
he himself had a faint glimpse of, and to which he vaguely
aspired in his melancholy reveries. ... In his attempts at
innovation, Richelieu, as simple minister, much surpassed the
great king who had preceded him, in boldness. He undertook to
accelerate the movement towards civil unity and equality so
much, and to carry it so far, that hereafter it should be
impossible to recede. ... The work of Louis XI. had been
nearly lost in the depth of the troubles of the sixteenth
century; and that of Henry IV. was compromised by fifteen
years of disorder and weakness. To save it from perishing,
three things were necessary: that the high nobility should be
constrained to obedience to the king and to the law; that
Protestantism should cease to be an armed party in the State;
that France should be able to choose her allies freely in
behalf of her own interest and in that of European
independence. On this triple object the king-minister employed
his powerful intellect, his indefatigable activity, ardent
passions, and an heroic strength of mind. His daily life was a
desperate struggle against the nobles, the royal family, the
supreme courts, against all that existed of high institutions,
and corporations established in the country. For the purpose
of reducing all to the same level of submission and order, he
raised the royal power above the ties of family and the tie of
precedent; he isolated it in its sphere as a pure idea, the
living idea of the public safety and the national interest.
... He was as destitute of mercy as he was of fear, and
trampled under foot the respect due to judicial forms and
usages. He had sentences of death pronounced by commissioners
of his own selection: at the very foot of the throne he struck
the enemies of the public interest, and at the same time of
his own fortune, and confounded his personal hatreds with the
vengeance of the State. No one can say whether or not there
was deceit in that assurance of conscience which he manifested
in his last moments: God alone could look into the depth of
his mind. We who have gathered the fruit of his labours and of
his patriotic devotion at a distance of time--we can only bow,
before that man of revolution, by whom the ways which led to
our present state of society were prepared. But something sad
is still attached to his glory: he sacrificed everything to
the success of his undertaking; he stifled within himself and
crushed down in some noble spirits the eternal principles of
morality and humanity. When we look at the great things which
he achieved, we admire him with gratitude; we would, but we
cannot, love his character."
A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers État
or Third Estate in France, chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
V. Cousin,
Secret History of the French Court under
Richelieu and Mazarin,
chapters 3-4.
V. Cousin,
The Youth of Madame de Longueville.
Lord Mahon,
Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
chapter 1.
Cardinal de Retz,
Memoirs,
books 1-2.
M'lle de Montpensier,
Memoirs,
chapter 2-3.
{1225}
FRANCE: A. D. 1643.
Accession of Louis XIV.
FRANCE: A. D. 1643.
Enghien's (Condé's) campaign on the Moselle.
Siege and capture of Thionville.
"On the 20th of May ... Enghien made his triumphal entry into
Rocroy. He allowed his troops to repose for two days, and then
it was towards Guise that he directed his steps. He soon heard
that Don Francisco de Melo had taken shelter at Phillipeville,
that he was trying to rally his cavalry, but that of all his
infantry not above 2,000 men remained to him, and they
disarmed and nearly naked. No army any longer protected
Flanders, and the youthful courage of Enghien already
meditated its conquest. But the Court, which had expected to
sustain war in its own provinces, was not prepared to carry it
into foreign countries. It became necessary to give up all
idea of an invasion of Maritime Flanders and the siege of
Dunkirk, with which Enghien had at first flattered himself.
Then finding that the Spaniards had drawn off their troops
from the fortifications on the Moselle, Enghien proposed to
march thither, and take possession of them. ... Although this
project was very inferior to his first, its greatness
surprised the Council of Ministers: they at first refused
their consent, but the Duke insisted--and what could they
refuse to the victor of Rocroy? Thionville was at that time
considered to be one of the best fortresses in Europe. On
arriving before its walls, after a seven days' march, Enghien
... established his lines, erected bridges, raised redoubts,
and opened a double line of trenches on the 25th of June. The
French were several times repulsed, but always rallied; and
everywhere the presence of Enghien either prevented or
repaired the disorder. ... The obstinate resistance of the
garrison obliged the French to have recourse to mines, which,
by assiduous labor, they pushed forward under the interior of
the town. Then Enghien, wishing to spare bloodshed, sent a
flag of truce to the governor, and allowed him a safe conduct
to visit the state of the works. This visit convinced the
Spaniards of the impossibility of defending themselves any
longer. ... They evacuated the town on the 22d of August.
Thionville was then little more than a heap of ruins and
ashes. ... By this conquest Enghien soon became master of the
whole course of the Moselle down to the gates of Trèves.
Sierch alone ventured to resist him, but was reduced in 24
hours. Then, disposing his army in autumn quarters, he set off
for Paris."
Lord Mahon,
Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
chapter 1.
FRANCE: A. D. 1644-1646.
Campaigns in Catalonia.
The failures at Lerida.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.
FRANCE: A. D. 1645-1648.
Campaigns in Flanders.
Capture of Dunkirk.
Loss of the Dutch alliance.
Conde's victory at Lens.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1634-1646; 1646-1648; 1647-1648.
FRANCE: A. D. 1646-1648.
The last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
Turenne and the Swedes in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
FRANCE: A. D. 1646-1654.
Hostility to the Pope.
Siege of Orbitello.
Attempts to take advantage of the insurrection in Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.
Conflict between Court and Parliament.
The question of the Paulette.
Events leading to the First Fronde.
"The war was conducted with alternate success and failure, but
with an unintermitted waste of the public revenue; and while
Guébriant, Turenne, and Condé were maintaining the military
renown of France, D'Emery, the superintendent of finance, was
struggling with the far severer difficulty of raising her ways
and means to the level of her expenditure. The internal
history of the first five years of the regency is
thenceforward a record of the contest between the court and
the Parliament of Paris; between the court, promulgating
edicts to replenish the exhausted treasury, and the
Parliament, remonstrating in angry addresses against the
acceptance of them." Of the four sovereign courts which had
their seat at that time in the Palais de Justice of Paris, and
of which the Parliament was the most considerable--the other
three being the Chamber 'des Comptes,' the Cour des Aides, and
the Grand Conseil--the counselors or stipendiary judges held
their offices for life. "But, in virtue of the law called
Paulette [named from Paulet, its originator, in the reign of
Henry IV.] ... they also held them as an inheritance
transmissible to their descendants. The Paulette ... was a
royal ordinance which imposed an annual tax on the stipend of
every judge. It was usually passed for a term of nine years
only. If the judge died during that term, his heir was
entitled to succeed to the vacant office. But if the death of
the judge happened when the Paulette was not in force, his
heir had no such right. Consequently, the renewal of the tax
was always welcome to the stipendiary counselors of the
sovereign courts; and, by refusing or delaying to renew it,
the king could always exercise a powerful influence over them.
In April, 1647, the Paulette had expired, and the queen-mother
proposed the revival of it. But, to relieve the necessities of
the treasury, she also proposed to increase the annual per
centage which it imposed on the stipends of the counselors of
the Chamber 'des Comptes,' of the Cour des Aides, and of the
Grand Conseil. To concert measures of resistance to the
contemplated innovation, those counselors held a meeting in
the Great Hall of St. Louis; and at their request the
Parliament, though not personally and directly interested in
the change, joined their assembly." The queen sarcastically
replied to their remonstrances that the "king would not only
withdraw his proposal for an increase in the rate of the
annual tax on their stipends, but would even graciously
relieve them from that burden altogether. ... Exasperated by
the threatened loss of the heritable tenure of their offices,
and still more offended by the sarcastic terms in which that
menace was conveyed, the judges assembled in the hall of St.
Louis with increased zeal, and harangued there with yet more
indignant eloquence. Four different times the queen
interdicted their meetings, and four different times they
answered her by renewed resolutions for the continuance of
them. She threatened severe punishments, and they replied by
remonstrances. A direct collision of authority had thus
occurred, and it behooved either party to look well to their
steps." The queen began to adopt a conciliatory manner. "But
the associated magistrates derived new boldness from the
lowered tone and apparent fears of the government.
{1226}
Soaring at once above the humble topic on which they had
hitherto been engaged into the region of general politics,
they passed at a step from the question of the Paulette to a
review of all the public grievances under which their fellow
subjects were labouring. After having wrought during four
successive days in this inexhaustible mine of eloquence, they
at length, on the 30th of June, 1648, commenced the adoption
of a series of resolutions, which, by the 24th of July, had
amounted in number to 27, and which may be said to have laid
the basis of a constitutional revolution. ... Important as
these resolutions were in themselves, they were still more
important as the assertion, by the associated magistrates, of
the right to originate laws affecting all the general
interests of the commonwealth. In fact, a new power in the
state had suddenly sprung into existence. ... That was an age
in which the minds of men, in every part of Europe, had been
rudely awakened to the extent to which the unconstitutional
encroachments of popular bodies might be carried. Charles I.
was at that time a prisoner in the hands of the English
Parliament. Louis XIV. was a boy, unripe for an encounter with
any similar antagonists. ... The queen-mother, therefore,
resolved to spare no concessions by which the disaffected
magistracy might be conciliated. D'Emery was sacrificed to
their displeasure; the renewal of the Paulette on its ancient
terms was offered to them; some of the grievances of which
they complained were immediately redressed; and the young king
appeared before them in person, to promise his assent to their
other demands. In return, he stipulated only for the cessation
of their combined meetings, and for their desisting from the
further promulgation of arrêts, to which they ascribed the
force and authority of law. But the authors of this hasty
revolution were no longer masters of the spirits whom they had
summoned to their aid. ... With increasing audacity,
therefore, they persevered in defying the royal power, and in
requiring from all Frenchmen implicit submission to their own.
Advancing from one step to another, they adopted, on the 28th
of August, 1648, an arrêt in direct conflict with a recent
proclamation of the king, and ordered the prosecution of three
persons for the offense of presuming to lend him money. At
that moment their debates were interrupted by shouts and
discharges of cannon, announcing the great victory of Condé at
Lens. During the four following days religious festivals and
public rejoicings suspended their sittings. But in those four
days, the court had arranged their measures for a coup d'état.
As the Parliament retired from Notre Dame, where they had
attended at a solemn thanksgiving for the triumph of the arms
of France, they observed that the soldiery still stood to the
posts which, in honour of that ceremonial, had been assigned
to them in different quarters of the city. Under the
protection of that force, one of the presidents of the Chamber
'des Enquêtes,' and De Broussel, the chief of the
parliamentary agitators, were arrested and consigned to
different prisons, while three of their colleagues were exiled
to remote distances from the capital. At the tidings of this
violence, the Parisian populace were seized with a
characteristic paroxysm of fury. ... In less than three hours,
Paris had become an entrenched camp. ... They dictated their
own terms. The exiles were recalled and the prisoners
released. ... Then, at the bidding of the Parliament, the
people laid aside their weapons, threw down the barricades,
re-opened their shops, and resumed the common business of life
as quietly as if nothing had occurred. ... It was, however, a
short-lived triumph. The queen, her son, and Mazarin effected
their escape to St. Germains; and there, by the mediation of
Condé and of Gaston, duke of Orleans, the uncle of the king, a
peace was negotiated. The treaty of St. Germains was regarded
by the court with shame, and by the Parliament with
exultation." Fresh quarrels over it soon arose. "Condé was a
great soldier, but an unskillful and impatient peacemaker. By
his advice and aid, the queen-mother and the king once more
retired to St. Germains, and commanded the immediate
adjournment of the Parliament from Paris to Montargis. To
their remonstrances against that order they could obtain no
answer, except that if their obedience to it should be any
longer deferred, an army of 25,000 men would immediately lay,
siege to the city. War was thus declared."
Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 21.
ALSO IN:
Cardinal De Retz,
Memoirs,
book 2 (volume 1).
FRANCE: A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
Acquisition of Alsace, etc.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
FRANCE: A. D. 1649.
The First Fronde.
Doubtful origin of the name.
Siege of Paris by Condé.
Dishonorable conduct of Turenne.
Deserted by his army.
The Peace of Reuil.
"The very name of this movement is obscure, and it is only
certain that it was adopted in jest, from a child's game. It
was fitting that the struggle which became only a mischievous
burlesque on a revolution should be named from the sport of
gamins and school-boys. Fronde is the name of a sling, and the
boys of the street used this weapon in their mimic contests.
How it came to be applied to the opponents of the government
is uncertain. Some claimed it was because the members of the
Parliament, like the young frondeurs, hurled their weapons at
Mazarin, but were ready to fly when the officers of the police
appeared. Others said the term had been used by chance by some
counsellor, and had been adopted by the writers of epigrams
and mazarinades. However derived, it was not ill applied."
J. B. Perkins,
France Under Mazarin,
chapter 9 (volume 1).
"Paul de Gondi, Coadjutor of Paris [Coadjutor, that is, of the
Archbishop of Paris, who was his uncle], famous afterwards
under the name of Cardinal de Retz, placed himself at the head
of the revolution. ... The Prince of Conti, brother of Condé,
the Duke of Longueville, the Duke of Beaufort, and the Duke of
Bouillon adopted the party of the coadjutor and the
parliament. Generals were chosen for an army with which to
resist the court. Although taxes levied by Mazarin had been
resisted, taxes were freely paid to raise troops--12,000 men
were raised; Condé [commanding for the queen] had 8,000
soldiers. These he threw around Paris, and invested 100,000
burgesses, and threatened to starve the town. The citizens,
adorned with feathers and ribbons, made sorties occasionally,
but their manœuvres were the subject of scorn by the soldiers.
... As Voltaire says, the tone of the civil discords which
afflicted England at the same time mark well the difference
between the national characters.
{1227}
The English had thrown into their civil war a balanced fury
and a mournful determination. ... The French on the other hand
threw themselves into their civil strife with caprice,
laughter, dissolution and debauchery. Women were the leaders
of factions--love made and broke cabals. The Duchess of
Longueville urged Turenne, only a short time back appointed
Marshal of France, to encourage his army to revolt, which he
was commanding for his king. Nothing can justify Turenne's
action in this matter. Had he laid down his command and taken
the side of his brother [the Duke de Bouillon], on account of
his family grievance [the loss of the principality of
Sedan--see above, A. D. 1641-1642], the feudal spirit which in
those days held affection for family higher than affection for
country, might have excused him; but, while in the service of
a sovereign and intrusted with the command of an army, to
endeavour to lead his troops over to the enemy can be regarded
as nothing short of the work of a traitor. He himself pleads
as his apology that Condé was starving the population of Paris
by the investment. ... As it was he sacrificed his honour, and
allowed his fair fame to be tarnished for the sake of a
worthless woman who secretly jeered at his passion, and cared
nothing for his heart, but merely for his sword for her own
worldly advantage. As it was he endeavoured to persuade his
army to declare for the parliament, and purposed taking it
into Champagne, and marching for the relief of the capital;
but the treachery of the marshal was no match for the subtlety
of the cardinal. Before Turenne issued his declaration to his
troops the colonels of his regiment had already been tampered
with. The cardinal's emissaries had promised them pensions,
and distributed £800,000 among the officers and soldiers. This
was a decisive argument for mercenaries, who taught Turenne by
forsaking him that mercenary services can only be commanded by
money. D'Erlach had also stood firm. The regiments of Turenne,
six German regiments, called by d'Erlach, marched one night to
join him at Brisach. Three regiments of infantry threw
themselves under the guns of Philipsburg. Only a small force
was left to Turenne, who, finding the blow he intended
hopeless, sent the troops still with him to join d'Erlach at
Brisach, and retired himself with fifteen or twenty of his
friends to Heilbron, thence to Holland, where he awaited the
termination of the civil war. The news of the abandonment of
Turenne was received with despair at Paris, with wild joy at
St. Germain. His banishment, however, was not long. The
leaders of the parliament became aware that the princes of the
Fronde were trying to obtain foreign assistance to overturn
the monarchy; that their generals were negotiating a treaty
with Spain. They felt that order, peace, and the independence
of parliament, which would in this case become dependent upon
the nobility, was in danger. They took the patriotic
resolution quickly to act of their own accord. A conference
had been opened between the parliament and the Court. Peace
was concluded at Reuil, which, notwithstanding the
remonstrances of Conti [brother of Condé, the family being
divided in the First Fronde], Bouillon, and the other nobles
of the Fronde, was accepted by the whole parliament. Peace was
proclaimed in Paris to the discontent of the populace. ...
Turenne, on the conclusion of the treaty of Reuil, embarked in
Zeeland, landed at Dieppe, and posted to Paris."
H. M. Hozier,
Turenne,
chapter 6.
"After the signing of the peace, the Château of St. Germain
became the resort of many Frondeurs; the Duchess de
Longueville, the Prince of Conti, and nearly all the other
chiefs of the party, hastened to pay their respects to the
Queen. She received everybody without bitterness, some even
with friendship; and the Minister on his part affected much
general good-will. ... One of the first effects of the peace
between the parties was a reconciliation in the House of
Condé. The Princess Dowager employed herself with zeal and
success in reestablishing harmony between her children. Condé,
who despised his brother too much to hate him, readily agreed
to a reconciliation with him. As to his sister, he had always
felt for her great affection and confidence, and she no less
for him: these sentiments were revived at their very first
interview at Ruel, and he not only gave her back his
friendship, but began to enter into her views, and even to be
guided by her counsels. The Prince's policy was to make
Royalty powerful and respected, but not absolute. He said
publicly that he had done what he ought in upholding Mazarin,
because he had promised to do so: but for the future, if
things took a different line, he should not be bound by the
past. ... A prey to a thousand conflicting feelings, and
discontented with everybody, and perhaps with himself, he took
the resolution of retiring for several months to his
government in Burgundy. On returning from Dijon in the month
of August, the Prince found the Queen and the Cardinal at
Compiègne, and very much dejected. ... He ... pressed her to
return to Paris with her Minister, answering for Mazarin's
safety, at the risk of his own head. ... Their entry into
Paris took place a few days after."
Lord Mahon,
Life of Louis, Prince of Condé,
chapter 3-4.
ALSO IN:
Guy Joli,
Memoirs,
volume 1.
Cardinal De Retz,
Memoirs,
book 2.
Miss Pardoe,
Louis XIV.,
chapters 9-11.
FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
The New Fronde, or the Petits Maitres.
Its alliance with Spain and defeat at Rethel.
Revolt, siege and reduction of Bordeaux.
"Faction, laid asleep for one night, woke again fresh and
vigorous next morning. There was a Parliamentary party, a De
Retz party, and a Condé party, and each party plotted and
schemed unceasingly to discredit the others and to evoke
popular feeling against all except itself. ... Neither of the
leaders, each pretending fear of assassination, ever stirred
abroad unless in the company of 400 or 500 gentlemen, thus
holding the city in hourly peril of an 'émeute.' Condé's
arrogance and insolence becoming at last totally unbearable,
the Court proceeded to the bold measure of arresting him. New
combinations: De Retz and Orleans coalesce once more; De Retz
coquets with Mazarin and is promised a cardinal's hat. Wily
Mazarin strongly supports De Retz's nomination in public, and
privately urges every member of the council to vote against it
and to beseech the Queen to refuse the dignity. It was
refused; upon which De Retz turned his energies upon a general
union of parties for the purpose of effecting the release of
Condé and the overthrow of the minister.'
De Retz and the Fronde
(Temple Bar, volume 38, pages 535-536).
{1228}
Condé, his brother Conti, and his brother-in-law Longueville,
were arrested and conducted to Vincennes on the 18th of
January, 1650. "This was the second crisis of the sedition.
The old Fronde had expired; its leaders had sold themselves to
the Court; but in its place sprang up the New Fronde, called
also, from the affected airs of its leaders, the Petits
Maîtres. The beautiful Duchess of Longueville was the soul of
it, aided by her admirer, Marsillac, afterwards Duke de la
Rochefoucauld, and by the Duke of Bouillon. On the arrest of
her husband and her brother, the duchess had fled to Holland,
and afterwards to Stenai; where she and Bouillon's brother,
Turenne, who styled himself the 'King's Lieutenant-General for
the liberation of the Princes,' entered into negotiations with
the Archduke Leopold. Bouillon himself had retired into
Guienne, which province was alienated from the Court because
Mazarine maintained as its governor the detested Epernon. In
July Bouillon and his allies publicly received a Spanish envoy
at Bordeaux. Condé's wife and infant son had been received in
that city with enthusiasm. But on the approach of Mazarine
with the royal army, the inhabitants of Guienne, alarmed for
their vintage, now approaching maturity, showed signs of
submission; after a short siege Bordeaux surrendered, on
condition of an amnesty, in which Bouillon and La
Rochefoucauld were included; and the Princess of Condé was
permitted to retire (October 1st 1650). In the north, the
Frondeurs, with their Spanish allies, seemed at first more
successful. In the summer Leopold had entered Champagne,
penetrated to Ferté Milon, and some of his marauding parties
had even reached Dammartin. Turenne tried to persuade the
Archduke to march to Vincennes and liberate the princes; but
while he was hesitating, Gaston transferred the captives to
Marcoussis, whence they were soon after conveyed to Havre.
Leopold and Turenne, after a vain attempt to rouse the
Parisians, retreated to the Meuse and laid siege to Mouzon.
The Cardinal himself, like his master Richelieu, now assumed
the character of a general. Uniting with his troops in the
north the army of Guienne, he took up his quarters at Rethel,
which had been captured by Du Plessis Praslin. Hence he
ordered an attack to be made on the Spaniards. In the battle
which ensued, these were entirely defeated, many of their
principal officers were captured, and even Turenne himself
narrowly escaped the same fate (December 15th 1650). The
Cardinal's elation was unbounded. It was a great thing to have
defeated Turenne, and though the victory was Du Plessis',
Mazarine assumed all the credit of it. His head began to turn.
He forgot that he owed his success to the leaders of the old
Fronde, and especially to the Coadjutor; he neglected his
promises to that intriguing prelate, though Gondi plainly
declared that he must either be a prince of the Church or the
head of a faction. Mazarine was also imprudent enough to
offend the Parliament; and he compared them with that sitting
at London--which indeed was doing them too much honour. The
Coadjutor went over to the party of the princes, dragging with
him the feeble-minded Orleans, who had himself been insulted
by the Queen. Thus was produced a third phase of this singular
sedition--the union of the old Fronde with the new. The
Parliament now clamoured for the liberation of the princes. As
the Queen hesitated, Gaston bluntly declared that the
dismissal of Mazarine was necessary to the restoration of
peace; while the Parliament added to their former demand
another for the Cardinal's banishment. Mazarine saw his
mistake and endeavoured to rectify it. He hastened to Havre in
order to liberate the princes in person, and claim the merit
of a spontaneous act. But it was too late; it was plain that
he was acting only by constraint. The princes were conducted
back in triumph to Paris by a large retinue sent to escort
them. On February 25th 1651, their innocence was established
by a royal declaration, and they were restored to all their
dignities and charges. Mazarine, meanwhile, who saw that for
the present the game was lost, retired into exile; first into
Bouillon, and afterwards to Brühl on the Rhine, where the
Elector of Cologne offered him an asylum. From this place he
corresponded with the Queen, and continued to direct her
counsels. The anarchy and confusion that had ensued in France
were such as promised him a speedy return."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 1 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
T. Wright,
History of France,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).
Miss Pardoe,
Louis XIV. and the Court of France,
volume 1, chapter 13-15.
FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1652.
The loss of Catalonia.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.
FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.
The arrogance of Condé and his renewal of civil war.
The King's majority proclaimed.
General changing of sides.
Battle of Porte St. Antoine and massacre of
the Hôtel de Ville.
End of the Fronde.
Condé in the service of Spain.
"The liberated captives were received with every demonstration
of joy by all Paris and the Frondeurs, including the Duke of
Orleans. The Queen, melancholy, and perhaps really ill, lay in
bed to receive their visit of cold ceremony; but the Duke of
Orleans gave them a grand supper, and there was universal joy
at being rid of Mazarin. ... There was a promise to assemble
the States General, while Condé thought himself governing the
kingdom, and as usual his arrogance gave offence in various
quarters. One article in the compact which had gained his
liberty was that the Prince of Conti should marry Mademoiselle
de Chevreuse, but this alliance offended the pride of the
elder brother, and he broke the marriage off hastily and
haughtily. Madame de Chevreuse, much offended, repented of the
aid she had given, went over to the Queen's party, and took
with her the coadjutor, who was devoted to the rejected
daughter, and could always sway the mob of Paris. So many
persons had thus come to desert the cause of the Prince that
Anne of Austria thought of again arresting him." Condé,
supposing himself in danger, fled from the city on the 6th of
July, and "went to his château of St. Maur, where his family
and friends joined him; and he held a kind of court. Queen and
Parliament both sent entreaties to him to return, but he
disdained them all, and made the condition of his return the
dismissal of the secretaries whom Mazarin had left. The Queen,
most unwillingly, made them retire, and Condé did return for a
short time; but he was haughtier than ever, and openly
complained of Mazarin's influence, making every preparation
for a civil war. Strangely violent scenes took place," between
the Prince and the Coadjutor and their respective adherents;
and presently the Prince "quitted Paris, went to Chantilly,
and decided on war.
{1229}
Mazarin wrote to the Queen that the most prudent course would
be to ally herself with the Parliament to crush the Princes.
After they should have been put down the Parliament would be
easily dealt with. She acted on this advice. The elections for
the States General were beginning, but in order to quash them,
and cancel all her promises, the Queen decided on proclaiming
the majority of the King, and thus the close of her own
regency. It was of course a farce, since he had only just
entered his fourteenth year, and his mother still conducted
the Government; but it made a new beginning, and was an
occasion for stirring up the loyalty of the people. ... Condé
was unwilling to begin a civil war, and was only driven into
it by his sister's persuasions and those of his friends.
'Remember,' he said, 'if I once draw the sword, I shall be the
last to return it to the scabbard.' On the other side, Anne of
Austria said, 'Monsieur le Prince shall perish, or I will.'
From Montrond, Condé directed his forces to take possession of
the cities in Guyenne, and he afterwards proceeded to
Bordeaux. On the other hand, Mazarin repaired to Sedan, and
contrived to raise an army in the frontier cities, with which
he marched to join the King and Queen at Poitiers. War was
raging again, still as the Fronde, though there had been a
general change of sides, the Parliament being now for the
Court, and the Princes against it, the Duke of Orleans in a
state of selfish agitation between the two. Learning that the
royal army was advancing to his own appanage of Orleans, and
fearing that the city might open its gates to them, he sent
off his daughter, Mademoiselle [de Montpensier], to keep the
citizens to what he called their duty to himself. She went
with only two ladies and her servants ... and found the gates
closed against her." The persevering Mademoiselle succeeded,
however, in gaining admission to the town, despite the orders
of the magistrates, and she kept out of it the soldiers of
both factions in the war. But her own inclinations were
strongly towards Condé and his side. "She went out to a little
inn to hold a council with the Dukes of Beaufort and Nemours,
and had to mediate between them in a violent quarrel. ...
Indeed, Condé's party were ill-agreed; he had even quarreled
with his sister, and she had broken with De la Rochefoucauld!
The Duke de Bouillon and his brother Turenne were now on the
Queen's side, and the command of the royal army was conferred
on the Viscount. Condé, with only eight persons, dashed across
France, to take the command of the army over which Beaufort and
Nemours were disputing. The very morning after he arrived,
Turenne saw by the disposition of the troops who must be
opposed to him. 'M. le Prince is come,' he said. They were the
two greatest captains of the age, and they fought almost in
sight of the King and Queen at Bleneau. But though there were
skirmishes [including, at the outset, the serious defeat of a
division of the royal forces under Hocquincourt], no decisive
engagement took place. It was a struggle of manœuvres, and in
this Condé had the disadvantage. ... Week after week the two
armies ... watched one another, till at last Condé was driven
up to the walls of Paris, and there the gates were closed
against both armies. Condé was at St. Cloud, whence, on the
2nd of July [1652], he endeavoured to lead his army round to
Charenton at the confluence of the Seine and the Loire; but
when he came in front of the Porte St. Antoine, he found that
a battle was inevitable and that he was caught in a trap,
where, unless he could escape through the city, his
destruction was inevitable. He barricaded the three streets
that met there, heaping up his baggage as a protection, and
his friends within, many of them wives of gentlemen in his
army, saw the situation with despair." The only one who had
energy to act was Mademoiselle. She extorted from her
hesitating father an order, by virtue of which she persuaded
the magistrates of the city, not only to open the gates to
Condé, but to send 2,000 men to the Faubourg St. Antoine.
"Mademoiselle now repaired to the top of the great square
tower of the Bastille, whence she could see the terrible
conflict carried on in the three suburban streets which
converged at the Porte St. Antoine." Seeing an opportunity to
turn the cannon of the Bastille on the pursuing troops, she
did so with effect. "Turenne was obliged to draw back, and at
last Condé brought his army into the city, where they encamped
in the open space of the Pré des Clercs. ... Condé unworthily
requited the hospitality wrung from the city. He was resolved
to overcome the neutrality of the Parliament, and, in concert
with Beaufort, instigated the mob to violence. Many soldiers
were disguised as artizans, and mingled with the rabble, when,
on the 4th of July, he went to the Hotel de Ville, ostensibly
to thank, the magistrates, but really to demand their support
against the Crown. These loyal men, however, by a majority of
votes, decided on a petition to the King to return without
Mazarin. On this Condé exclaimed publicly, 'These gentlemen
will do nothing for us. They are Mazarinists. Treat them as
you please.' Then he retired to the Luxembourg with Gaston,
while Beaufort let loose the mob. The Hotel de Ville was
stormed, the rabble poured in at doors and windows, while the
disguised soldiers fired from the opposite houses, and the
magistrates were threatened and pursued on all sides. They had
one advantage, that they knew their way through the intricate
passages and the mob did not. The first who got out rushed to
the Luxembourg to entreat the Duke and Prince to stop the
massacre; but Monsieur only whistled and beat his tattoo, and
Condé said he knew nothing about sedition. Nor would Beaufort
interfere till the disturbance had lasted many hours; but
after all many more of the rabble were killed than of the
magistrates. It was the last remarkable scene in the strange
drama of the Fronde. The Parliament suspended its sittings,
and the King transferred it to Pontoise, whither Molé and all
the other Presidents proceeded, leaving Paris in disguise.
This last ferocious proceeding of Condé's, though he tried to
disavow it, had shocked and alienated everyone, and he soon
after fell sick of a violent fever. Meanwhile, his castle of
Montrond was taken after a year's siege, Nemours was killed in
a duel by the Duke of Beaufort, and the party was falling to
pieces. ... Mazarin saw the opportunity, and again left the
Court for the German frontier. This was all that was wanting
to bring back the malcontents. Condé offered to make terms,
but was haughtily answered that it was no time for
negotiation, but for submission. Upon this, he proceeded to
the Low Countries, and offered his sword to the Spaniards.
{1230}
The King entered Paris in state and held a bed of justice, in
which he proclaimed an amnesty, excepting from it Condé and
Conti, and some others of their party, and forbidding the
Parliament to interfere in State affairs. The Coadjutor, who
had become a Cardinal, was arrested, and imprisoned until he
made his escape, dislocating his shoulder in his fall from the
window, but finally reaching Rome, where he lived till the
Fronde was forgotten, but never becoming Archbishop of Paris.
... When all was quiet, Mazarin returned, in February, 1653,
without the slightest opposition, and thus ended the Fronde,
in the entire triumph of the Crown. ... The misery, distress
and disease caused by these wars of the Fronde were
unspeakable. There was nothing to eat in the provinces where
they had raged but roots, rotten fruit, and bread made of
bran. ... Le misère de la Fronde' was long a proverbial
expression in France."
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon,
Life of Condé,
chapters 8-9.
G. P. R. James,
Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
chapters 11-12.
Cardinal de Retz,
Memoirs,
books 3-4 (volumes 2-3).
M'lle de Montpensier,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 11-17.
FRANCE: A. D. 1652.
Loss of Gravelines and Dunkirk.
Spanish invasion of Picardy.
"In the spring of 1652, the Spanish forces, under the command
of the archduke had undertaken the siege of Gravelines, which
was obliged to capitulate on the 18th of May. The archduke
next undertook the siege of Dunkirk, but, at the earnest
desire of the princes, he merely blockaded the place, and sent
Fuensaldaña with about 14,000 men into Picardy to their
assistance. ... The court, in great alarm, sought first a
retreat in Normandy, but the Duke of Longueville, who still
held the government of that province, refused to receive
Mazarin. The fears of the court were not lessened by this
proceeding, and it was even proposed to carry the king to
Lyons; but the wiser counsels of Turenne finally prevailed,
and it was resolved to establish the army at Compiègne, and
lodge the court at Pontoise. Fuensaldaña forced the passage of
the Oise at Chauni, and then joined the duke of Lorraine at
Fismes, on the 29th of July, when their joint forces amounted
to full 20,000 men, while Turenne had not more than 11,000 to
oppose to them. But the Spaniards were, as usual, only
pursuing a selfish policy, and Fuensaldaña, in pursuance of
the archduke's orders, left a body of 3,000 cavalry to
reinforce the duke of Lorraine, and returned with the rest of
his troops to assist in the siege of Dunkirk," which soon
surrendered to his arms.
T. Wright,
History of France,
volume 2, page 89.
FRANCE: A. D. 1652-1653.
Last phase of the Fronde at Bordeaux.
Attempted revolution by the Society of the Ormée.
See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.
FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
Condé's campaigns against his own country, in the service of
Spain.
"Condé, unfortunately for his fame, made no attempts at
reconciliation, and retired to the Spaniards--an enemy of his
country! He captured several small places on the [Flemish]
frontier, and hoped to return in spring victorious. A few days
after the entry into Paris, Turenne set out to oppose him;
and, retaking some towns, had the satisfaction, of compelling
him to seek winter quarters beyond the limits of France. ...
Condé persuaded the Spanish to bring 30,000 men into the field
for the next campaign: Turenne and La Ferté had but 13,000. To
paralyze the plans of the enemy, the Viscount proposed, and
his proposal was allowed, to be always threatening their rear
and communications; to occupy posts they would not dare to
attack, and so to avoid fighting, at the same time hindering
them from all important undertakings. He began by throwing
himself between two corps of their army, at the point where
they expected to effect a junction; and in the eight or nine
days thus gained, he recovered Rhétel, without which it would
have been, as he declares himself, impossible to defend
Picardy and Champagne. Rhétel, so much an object of anxiety,
was taken in three days. Baffled in their original purposes,
and at a loss, the Spanish expected a large convoy from
Cambray, escorted by 3,000 horse. Turenne got news of this,
and, posting himself near Peronne to intercept it, drove it
back to Cambray [August 11, 1653]. There Condé and Fuensaldaña
turned upon him; but he took up a position, which they watched
for three or four days, and there defied their attack. They
refused the challenge. Thence the enemy drew off," with
designs on Guise, which Turenne frustrated. "Condé then laid
siege to Rocroi, where his own first glory had been gained;
and this place is so hemmed in by woods and defiles, that the
relief of it was impossible. But Turenne compensated for the
loss of it by the equally valuable recapture, of Mouson. Thus
the whole year was spent in marches and countermarches, in
gains and losses, which had no influence on events. By this
time the malcontents were so prostrate that Condé's brother,
the Prince de Conti, and his sister, the Duchesse de
Longueville, made their peace with the court. ... The year
1654 opened with the siege of Stenay by the young king in
person, who was carried thither by Mazarin, to overawe Condé's
governor with the royal name and majesty. That officer was
more true to his trust than to his allegiance, and Stenay cost
a siege. ... Condé could do no better than imitate Turenne's
policy of the previous year, and besiege Arras as an
equivalent for Stenay; to which end he mustered 32,000 men.
Arras was a town of some value. Condé had caught it at
disadvantage; the governor, Mondejeu ... was put on his
defence with 2,500 foot and 100 horse. To reinforce this
slender garrison was the first care of Turenne. ... Mazarin
was anxious for Arras, and offered Turenne to break up the
siege of Stenay, for the sake of reinforcing the army of
relief. This proposal the Viscount declined. He must have been
very confident of his own capacity; for he could collect only
14,000 men to hover around the enemy's camp. ... He proposed
no attempt upon the intrenchments till he had the aid of the
troops from Stenay ... ; but he disposed his parties around so
as to prevent the enemy's convoys from reaching them." Stenay
surrendered on the 6th of August, and Turenne, with
reinforcements from its besiegers, attacked the Spanish lines
at Arras on the night of the 24th, with complete success. The
Spaniards raised the siege and retreated to Cambray, leaving
3,000 prisoners and 63 pieces of cannon in the hands of the
French. "The capture of Quesnoy and Binches filled up the rest
of the year; the places were weak and the garrisons feeble.
{1231}
Nor did the next season, 1655, offer anything of interest.
Turenne reduced Landrecies, Condé, and Guislain, while his
active opponent was sometimes foiled by his precautions, and
sometimes baffled by the absurd behaviour of the Spanish
authorities. ... The great event of 1656 was the siege of
Valenciennes. This place ... was invested by Turenne about the
middle of June: but hardly had his camp been intrenched before
he repented of his undertaking. The Scheldt flows through the
town, and by reservoirs and sluices was flooded at the will of
the enemy. Turenne's camp was largely inundated. ... He had
overestimated his means: so great was the circle of his
circumvallation that he had not men enough to guard it
adequately, when Condé and the Spanish appeared with 20,000
men to the relief of the place." They broke through his lines
and forced him to retreat, with a heavy loss of prisoners
taken. "The Viscount retrieved his credit by the bold stand he
made after the defeat."
T. O. Cockayne,
Life of Marshal Turenne,
pages 58-69.
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon,
Life of Condé,
chapter 10.
J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin,
chapters 16-17 (volume 2).
FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1660.
First persecution of the Jansenists.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.
FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
Alliance with the English Commonwealth against Spain.
The taking of Dunkirk for England and Gravelines for France.
End of the war.
"Mazarin was now bent upon an enterprise which, if successful,
must finish the war. A deadly blow would be struck at the
strength of Spain if Dunkirk, Mardyck, and Gravelines--the
possession of which was of vital importance to her
communication with Flanders, as well as enabling her to ruin
French commerce on that coast--could be wrested from her. For
this the cooperation of some maritime power was necessary, and
Mazarin determined at all costs to secure England. With
Cromwell, the only diplomatist by whose astuteness he
confessed himself baffled, he had been negotiating since 1651.
... At length on November 3, 1655, a treaty was signed at
Westminster, based upon freedom of commerce and an engagement
that neither country should assist the enemies or rebels of
the other; Mazarin consented to expel Charles II., James, and
twenty named royalists from France. Cromwell similarly agreed
to dismiss from England the emissaries of Condé. But Mazarin
was soon anxious for a more effectual bond. ... Cromwell had
equally good reasons for drawing closer to France, for Spain
was preparing actively to assist Charles II. French and
English interests thus coinciding, an alliance was signed at
Paris on March 23, 1657
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.
Gravelines and Dunkirk were to be at once besieged both by
land and sea. England was to send 6,000 men to assist the
French army. Gravelines was to become French and Dunkirk
English; should the former fall first it was to be held by
England until Dunkirk too was taken. ... The alliance was not
a moment too soon. The campaign of 1657 had opened
disastrously. The tide was however turned by the arrival of
the English contingent. Montmédy was immediately besieged, and
capitulated on August 4. The effect was again to make Mazarin
hang back from further effort, since it seemed possible now to
make peace with Spain, and thereby avoid an English occupation
of Dunkirk. But Cromwell would stand no trifling, and his
threats were so clear that Mazarin determined to act loyally
and without delay. On September 30, Turenne laid siege to
Mardyck, which protected Dunkirk, and took it in four days. It
was at once handed over to the English." In the spring of 1658
the siege of Dunkirk was begun. The Spaniards, under Don John
of Austria and Condé, attempting to relieve the place, were
defeated (June 13) in the battle of the Dunes, by Turenne and
Cromwell's Ironsides (see ENGLAND: A. D.1655-1658). "Dunkirk
immediately surrendered, and on the 25th was in Cromwell's
possession. Two months later Gravelines also fell. A short and
brilliant campaign followed, in which Don John and Condé, shut
up in Brussels and Tournai respectively, were compelled to
remain inactive while fortress after fortress fell into French
hands. A few days after the fall of Gravelines Cromwell died;
but Mazarin was now near his goal. Utterly defeated on her own
soil, beaten, too, by the Portuguese at Elvas, and threatened
in Milan, her army ruined, her treasury bankrupt, without a
single ally in Europe, Spain stood at last powerless before
him."
O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 6.
FRANCE: A. D. 1657.
Candidacy of Louis XIV. for the imperial crown.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1705.
FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
The treaty of the Pyrenees.
Marriage of Louis XIV. to the Spanish Infanta.
"The Spaniards could struggle no longer: they sued for peace.
Things were prepared for it on every hand: Spain was
desperate; matters far from settled or safe in France; in
England the Protector's death had come very opportunely for
Mazarin; the strong man was no longer there to hold the
balance between the European powers. Questions as to a Spanish
marriage and the Spanish succession had been before men since
1648; the Spaniards had disliked the match, thinking that in
the end it must subject them to France. But things were
changed; Philip IV. now had an heir, so that the nations might
hope to remain under two distinct crowns; moreover, the needs
of Spain were far greater than in 1648, while the demands of
France were less. So negociation between Mazarin and Louis de
Haro on the little Isle of Pheasants in the Bidassoa, under
the very shadow of the Pyrenees, went on prosperously; even
the proposal that Louis XIV. should espouse the Infanta of
Spain, Maria Theresa, was at last agreed to at Madrid. The
only remaining difficulty arose from" the fact that the young
King, Louis XIV., had fallen in love with Maria Mancini,
Cardinal Mazarin's niece, and wished to marry her. "The King
at last abandoned his youthful and pure passion, and signed
the Treaty of the Pyrenees [concluded November 7, 1659],
condemning himself to a marriage of state, which exalted high
the dignity of the French Crown, only to plunge it in the end
into the troubles and disasters of the Succession War. The
treaty of peace begins with articles on trade and navigation:
then follow cessions, restitutions, and exchanges of
territories.
{1232}
1. On the Northern frontier Spain ceded all she had in Artois,
with exception of Aire and S. Omer; in Flanders itself France
got Gravelines and its outer defences. In Hainault she became
mistress of the important towns, Landrecies, Quesnoy, and
Avesnes, and also strengthened her position by some exchanges:
in Luxemburg she retained Thionville, Montmédy, and several
lesser places; so that over her whole northern border France
advanced her frontier along a line answering to her old
limits. ... In return she restored to Spain several of her
latest conquests in Flanders: Ypres, Oudenarde, Dixmüden,
Furnes, and other cities. In Condé's country France recovered
Rocroy, Le Câtelet and Linchamp, occupied by the Prince's
soldiers; and so secured the safety and defences of Champagne
and Paris.
2. More to the East, the Duke of Lorraine, having submitted
with such good grace as might be, was reinstated in his Duchy.
... But France received her price here also, the Duchy of Bar,
the County of Clermont on the edge of Champagne, Stenay, Dun,
Jametz, Moyenvic, became hers. The fortifications of Nancy
were to be rased for ever; the Duke of Lorraine bound himself
to peace, and agreed to give France free passage to the
Bishopricks and Alsace. This was the more necessary, because
Franche-Comté, the other highway into Alsace, was left to the
Spaniards, and such places in it as were in the King's hands
were restored to them. Far out in Germany Louis XIV. replaced
Jülich in the hands of the Duke of Neuberg; and that element
of controversy, the germ or pretext of these long wars, was
extinct for ever. On the Savoyard border France retained
Pinerolo, with all the means and temptations of offence which
it involved: she restored to the Duke her other conquests
within his territories, and to the Spaniards whatever she held
in Lombardy; she also honourably obtained an amnesty for those
subjects of Spain, Neapolitans or Catalans, who had sided with
France. Lastly, the Pyrenees became the final, as it was the
natural, boundary between the two Latin kingdoms. ...
Roussillon and Conflans became French: all French conquests to
the south of the Pyrenees were restored to Spain. The Spanish
King renounced all claims on Alsace or Breisach: on the other
hand the submission of the great Condé was accepted; he was
restored to all his domains; his son, the young Duke of
Enghien, being made Grand Master of France, and he himself
appointed Governor of Burgundy and Bresse: his friends and
followers were included in the amnesty. Some lesser
stipulations, with a view to the peace of Europe, for the
settlement of the differences between Spain and Portugal,

between the Dukes of Savoy and Mantua, between the Catholic
and the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland, and an agreement to
help forward peace between the Northern Courts, worthily close
this great document, this weighty appendix to the Treaties of
Westphalia. A separate act, as was fitting, regulated all
questions bearing on the great marriage. It contains a solemn
renunciation, intended to bar for ever the union of the two
Crowns under one sceptre, or the absorption into France of
Flanders, Burgundy, or Charolais. It was a renunciation which,
as Mazarin foresaw long before, would never hold firm against
the temptations and exigencies of time. The King's marriage
with the Infanta Maria Theresa of Spain did not take place
till the next year, by which time Mazarin's work in life
seemed well nigh over; racked with gout, he had little
enjoyment of his triumphs. ... He betook himself to the
arrangement of his own affairs: his physicians giving him,
early in 1661, no hopes of recovery. ... These things
arranged, the Cardinal resigned himself to die 'with a
serenity more philosophic than Christian'; and passed away on
the 8th of March, 1661."
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3).
"The Treaty of the Pyrenees, which completed the great work of
pacification that had commenced at Munster, is justly
celebrated as having put an end to such bitter and useless
animosities. But, it is more famous, as having introduced a
new æra in European politics. In its provisions all the
leading events of a century to come had their origin--the wars
which terminated with the Treaties of Aix-la-Chapelle,
Nimeguen, and Ryswick, and that concerning the Spanish
succession. So great an epoch in history has the Pyrenean
Treaty been accounted by politicians, that Lord Bolingbroke
was of opinion, 'That the only part of history necessary to be
thoroughly studied, goes no farther back than this treaty,
since, from that period, a new set of motives and principles
have prevailed all over Europe.'"
J. Dunlop,
Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of
Philip IV. and Charles II., volume 1.
chapter 11.
FRANCE: A. D. 1660-1688.
A footing gained in Newfoundland.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
FRANCE: A. D. 1661.
Personal assumption of the government by Louis XIV.
The extraordinary characteristics of the reign of the Grand
Monarch, now begun.
On the death of Mazarin Louis XIV., then twenty-three years
old, announced to his council his intention of taking the
government solely upon himself. His ministers were
henceforward to receive instructions from him in person; there
was to be no premier at their head. The reign which then began
"was the culminating epoch in the history of the French
Monarchy. What the age of Pericles was in the history of the
Athenian Democracy, what the age of the Scipios was in the
history of the Roman Republic, that was the reign of Louis
XIV. in the history of the old Monarchy of France. ... It is
not only the most conspicuous reign in the history of
France--it is the most conspicuous reign in the history of
Monarchy in general. Of the very many kings whom history
mentions, who have striven to exalt the monarchical principle,
none of them achieved a success remotely comparable to his. ...
They may have ruled over wider dominions, but they never
attained the exceptional position of power and prestige which
he enjoyed for more than half a century. They never were
obeyed so submissively at home, nor so dreaded, and even
respected, abroad. For Louis XIV. carried off that last reward
of complete success, that he for a time silenced even envy,
and turned it into admiration. We who can examine with cold
scrutiny the make and composition of this Colossus of a French
Monarchy; who can perceive how much the brass and clay in it
exceeded the gold; who know how it afterwards fell with a
resounding ruin, the last echoes of which have scarcely died
away, have difficulty in realising the fascination it
exercised upon contemporaries who witnessed its first setting
up. Louis XIV.'s reign was the very triumph of commonplace
greatness, of external magnificence and success, such as the
vulgar among mankind can best and most sincerely appreciate.
... His qualities were on the surface, visible and
comprehensible to all. ...
{1233}
He was indefatigably industrious: worked on an average eight
hours a day for fifty-four years; had, great tenacity of will;
that kind of solid judgment which comes of slowness of brain,
and withal a most majestic port and great dignity of manners.
He had also as much kindliness of nature as the very great can
be expected to have. ... He must have had great original
fineness of tact, though it was in the end nearly extinguished
by adulation and incense. His court was an extraordinary
creation, and the greatest thing he achieved. He made it the
microcosm of all that was most brilliant and prominent in
France. Every order of merit was invited there, and received
courteous welcome. To no circumstance did he so much owe his
enduring popularity. By its means he impressed into his
service that galaxy of great writers, the first and the last
classic authors of France, whose calm and serene lustre will
for ever illumine the epoch of his existence. It may even be
admitted that his share in that lustre was not so accidental
and undeserved as certain king-haters have supposed. That
subtle critic, M. Ste. Beuve, thinks he can trace a marked
rise even in Bossuet's style from the moment he became a
courtier of Louis XIV. The king brought men together, placed
them in a position where they were induced and urged to bring
their talents to a focus. His Court was alternately a
high-bred gala and a stately university. ... But Louis XIV.'s
reign has better titles than the adulations of courtiers and
the eulogies of wits and poets to the attention of posterity.
It marks one of the most memorable epochs in the annals of
mankind. It stretches across history like a great
mountain-range, separating ancient France from the France of
modern times. On the farther slope are Catholicism and
feudalism in their various stages of splendour and decay--the
France of crusade and chivalry, of St. Louis and Bayard. On
the hither side are free-thought, industry, and
centralization--the France of Voltaire, Turgot and Condorcet.
When Louis came to the throne, the Thirty Years' War still
wanted six years of its end, and the heat of theological
strife was at its intensest glow. When he died, the religious
temperature had cooled nearly to freezing-point, and a new
vegetation of science and positive inquiry was overspreading
the world. This amounts to saying that his reign covers the
greatest epoch of mental transition through which the human
mind has hitherto passed, excepting the transition we are
witnessing in the day which now is. We need but recall the
names of the writers and thinkers who arose during Louis
XIV.'s reign, and shed their seminal ideas broadcast upon the
air, to realise how full a period it was, both of birth and
decay; of the passing away of the old and the uprising of the
new forms of thought. To mention only the greatest;--the
following are among the chiefs who helped to transform the
mental fabric of Europe in the age of Louis XIV.:--Descartes,
Newton, Leibnitz, Locke, Boyle. ... But the chief interest
which the reign of Louis XIV. offers to the student of history
has yet to be mentioned. It was the great turning-point in the
history of the French people. The triumph, of the Monarchical
principle was so complete under him, independence and
self-reliance were so effectually crushed, both in localities
and individuals, that a permanent bent was given to the
national mind--a habit of looking to the Government for all
action and initiative permanently established. Before the
reign of Louis XIV. it was a question which might fairly be
considered undecided, whether the country would be able or
not, willing or not, to co-operate with its rulers in the work
of the Government and the reform of abuses. On more than one
occasion such co-operation did not seem entirely impossible or
improbable. ... After the reign of Louis' XIV. such
co-operation of the ruler and the ruled became impossible. The
Government of France had become a machine depending upon the
action of a single spring. Spontaneity in the population at
large was extinct, and whatever there was to do must be done
by the central authority. As long as the Government could
correct abuses it was well; if it ceased to be equal to this
task they must go uncorrected. When at last the reform of
secular and gigantic abuses presented itself with imperious
urgency, the alternative before the Monarchy was either to
carry the reform with a high hand, or perish in the failure to
do so. We know how signal the failure was, and could not help
being, under the circumstances; and through having placed the
Monarchy between these alternatives, it is no paradox to say
that Louis XIV. was one of the most direct ancestors of the
Great Revolution."
J. C. Morison,
The Reign of Louis XIV.
(Fortnightly Review, March, 1874).
ALSO IN:
J. I. von Döllinger,
The Policy of Louis XIV.
(Studies in European History, chapter 11).
FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.
Revived and growing persecution of the Huguenots.
"One of the King's first acts, on assuming the supreme control
of affairs at the death of Mazarin, was significant, of his
future policy with regard to the Huguenots. Among the
representatives of the various public bodies who came to
tender him their congratulations, there appeared a deputation
of Protestant ministers, headed by their president Vignole;
but the King refused to receive them, and directed that they
should be ordered to leave Paris forthwith. Louis was not slow
to follow up this intimation by measures of a more positive
kind, for he had been carefully taught to hate Protestantism;
and, now that he possessed unrestrained power, he flattered
himself with the idea of compelling the Huguenots to abandon
their convictions and adopt his own. His minister Louvois
wrote to the governors throughout the provinces that 'his
majesty will not suffer any person in his kingdom but those
who are of his religion.' ... A series of edicts was
accordingly published with the object of carrying the King's
purposes into effect. The conferences of the Protestants were
declared to be suppressed. Though worship was still permitted
in their churches, the singing of psalms in private dwellings
was declared to be forbidden. ... Protestant children were
invited to declare themselves against the religion of their
parents. Boys of fourteen and girls of twelve years old might,
on embracing Roman Catholicism, become enfranchised and
entirely free from parental control. ... The Huguenots were
again debarred from holding public offices, though a few, such
as Marshal Turenne and Admiral Duquesne, who were Protestants,
broke through this barrier by the splendor of their services
to the state. In some provinces, the exclusion was so severe
that a profession of the Roman Catholic faith was required
from simple artisans. ...
{1234}
Colbert, while, he lived, endeavored to restrain the King, and
to abate these intolerable persecutions. ... He took the
opportunity of cautioning the King lest the measures he was
enforcing might tend, if carried out, to the impoverishment of
France and the aggrandizement of her rivals. ... But all
Colbert's expostulations were in vain; the Jesuits were
stronger than he was, and the King was in their hands;
besides, Colbert's power was on the decline. ... In 1666 the
queen-mother died, leaving to her son, as her last bequest,
that he should suppress and exterminate heresy within his
dominions. ... The Bishop of Meaux exhorted him to press on in
the path his sainted mother had pointed out to him. ... The
Huguenots had already taken alarm at the renewal of the
persecution, and such of them as could readily dispose of
their property and goods were beginning to leave the kingdom
in considerable numbers for the purpose of establishing
themselves in foreign countries. To prevent this, the King
issued an edict forbidding French subjects from proceeding
abroad without express permission, under penalty of
confiscation of their goods and property. This was followed by
a succession of severe measures for the conversion or
extirpation of such of the Protestants--in numbers about a
million and a half--as had not by this time contrived to make
their escape from the kingdom. The kidnapping of Protestant
children was actively set on foot by the agents of the Roman
Catholic priests, and their parents were subjected to heavy
penalties if they ventured to complain. Orders were issued to
pull down the Protestant places of worship, and as many as
eighty were shortly destroyed in one diocese. ... Protestants
were forbidden to print books without the authority of
magistrates of the Romish communion. Protestant teachers were
interdicted from teaching children any thing more than
reading, writing, and arithmetic. ... Protestants were only
allowed to bury their dead at daybreak or at nightfall. They
were prohibited from singing psalms on land or on water, in
workshops or in dwellings. If a priestly procession passed one
of their churches while the psalms were being sung, they must
stop instantly on pain of the fine or imprisonment of the
officiating minister. In short, from the pettiest annoyance to
the most exasperating cruelty, nothing was wanting on the part
of the 'Most Christian King' and his abettors."
S. Smiles,
The Huguenots,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
A. Maury,
Memoirs of a Huguenot Family (Fontaine),
chapters 4-7.
W. S. Browning,
History of the Huguenots,
chapters 59-60.
FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.
The administration of Colbert.
His economic system and its results.
"With Colbert the spirit of the great Cardinal came back to
power. Born at Reims on the 29th of August, 1619, Colbert was
educated by the Jesuits, and at the early age of nineteen
entered the War Office, in which department Le Tellier, a
connection of his family by marriage, filled the post of
Under-Secretary of State. From the first Colbert distinguished
himself by his abnormal powers of work, by his extraordinary
zeal in the public service, and by an equal devotion to his
own interests. His Jesuit training showed fruit in his
dealings with all those who, like Le Tellier or Mazarin, could
be of use to him on his road to power, whilst the old
tradition of his Scotch blood is favoured by a certain
'dourness' of character which rendered him in general
difficult of access. His marvellous strength of brain,
seconded by rare powers of endurance, enabled him to work
habitually fourteen hours a day to enter into every detail of
every branch of the administration, whilst at the same time he
never lost sight of that noble project of universal reform
which he had conceived, and which embraced both Church and
State. ... Qualified in every way for the work of
administration, absolutely indifferent to popularity, Colbert
seemed destined by nature to lead the final charge against the
surviving forces of the feudal system. After the troubles of
the Fronde had died away and the death of Mazarin had left
Louis XIV. a king in deed as well as in name, these forces of
the past were personified by Fouquet, and the duel between
Fouquet and Colbert was the dramatic close of a struggle
predestined to end in the complete triumph of absolutism. The
magnificent and brilliant Fouquet, who for years past had
taken advantage of his position as 'Surintendant des Finances'
to lavish the resources of the State on his private pleasures,
was plainly marked out as the object of Colbert's hostility.
... On the losing side were ranged all the spendthrift princes
and facile beauties of the Court, all the greedy recipients of
Fouquet's ostentatious bounties. He had reckoned that the
greatest names in France would be compromised by his fall, and
that by their danger his own safety was assured. He had
reckoned without Colbert; he had reckoned without that power
which had been steadily growing throughout all vicissitudes of
fate during the last two generations, and which was now
centred in the King. No stranger turn of fortune can be
pictured than that which, on the threshold of the modern era,
linked the nobles of France in their last struggle for
independence with the fortunes of a rapacious and fraudulent
financier, nor can anything be more suggestive of the
character of the coming epoch than the sight of this last
battle fought, not in the field of arms, but before a court of
law. To Colbert, the fall of Fouquet was but the necessary
preliminary to that reform of every branch of the
administration which had been ripening in his mind ever since
he had entered the public service. To bring the financial
situation into order, it was necessary first to call Fouquet
to account. ... The fall of the chief offender, Fouquet,
having been brought about, it was easy to force all those who
had been guilty of similar malversations on a minor scale to
run the gauntlet of the High Commission. Restitution and
confiscation became the order of the day, and when the Chamber
of Justice was finally dissolved in 1669, far beyond any
advantage which might be reckoned to the Treasury from these
sources was the gain to the nation in the general sense of
security and confidence. It was felt that the days of
wholesale dishonesty and embezzlement were at an end. ...
Colbert went forward from this moment without hesitation,
devoting his whole energies to the gigantic task of re-shaping
the whole internal economy of France. ... Backed by despotic
power, his achievements in these directions have to an
incredible extent determined the destinies of modern industry,
and have given origin to the whole system of modern
administration, not only in France, but throughout Europe.
{1235}
In the teeth of a lavish expenditure which he was utterly
unable to check, once and again did Colbert succeed in
establishing a financial equilibrium when the fortunes of
France seemed desperate. ... He aimed ... at the fostering of
home production by an elaborate system of protection, whilst
at the same time the markets of other countries were to be
forced open and flooded with French goods. Any attempt on the
part of a weaker power to imitate his own policy, such for
instance as that made in the papal states by Alexander VII.
and Clement IX., was instantly repressed with a high hand. ...
His leading idea was to lower all export dues on national
produce and manufactures, and, whilst diminishing import
duties on such raw materials as were required for French
manufactures, to raise them until they became prohibitive on
all foreign goods.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1664-1667 (FRANCE).
The success of the tariff of 1664 misled Colbert. That tariff
was a splendidly statesmanlike attempt to put an end to the
conflict and confusion of the duties, dues, and customs then
existing in the different provinces and ports of France, and
it was in effect a tariff calculated for purely fiscal
purposes. Far other were the considerations embodied in the
tariff of 1667, which led to the Dutch and English wars, and
which, having been enacted in the supposed interests of home
industry, eventually stimulated production in other countries.
... If, however, the industrial policy of Colbert cannot be
said to have realised his expectations, since it neither
brought about a great increase in the number of home
manufactures nor succeeded in securing a larger share of
foreign trade, there is not a doubt that, in spite even of the
disastrous wars which it provoked, it powerfully contributed,
on the whole, to place France in the front rank as a
commercial nation. ... The pitiless and despotic Louvois, who
had succeeded his father, Colbert's old patron Le Tellier, as
Secretary of State for War, played on the imperious vanity of
King Louis, and engaged him in wars big and little, which in
most cases wanted even the shade of a pretext. ... All the
zeal of the great Minister's strict economy could only stay
for a while the sure approach of national distress. ... When
Colbert died, on 6th September, 1683, the misery of France,
exhausted by oppressive taxation, and depopulated by armies
kept constantly on foot, cried out against the Minister who,
rather than fall from power, had lent himself to measures
which he heartily condemned. For the moment men forgot how
numerous were the benefits which he had conferred ... and
remembered only the harshness with which he had dealt justice
and stinted mercy. Yet order reigned where, before his advent,
all had been corruption and confusion; the navy of France had
been created, her colonies fostered, her forests saved from
destruction; justice and the authority of the law had been
carried into the darkest corners of the land; religious
toleration, socially if not politically, had been advocated;
whilst the encroachments of the Church had been more or less
steadfastly opposed. To the material prosperity of the
nation--even after we have made all possible deductions for
the evils arising from an exaggerated system of protection--an
immense and enduring impulse had been given; and although it
is true that, with the death of Colbert, many parts of his
splendid scheme fell to the ground, yet it must be confessed
that the spirit in which it was originated and improved still
animates France."
Lady Dilke,
France under Colbert
(Fortnightly Rev., February, 1886).
ALSO IN:
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapters 1-7.
See, also, TAILLE AND GABELLE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1662.
The purchase of Dunkirk from Charles II.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
FRANCE: A. D. 1663-1674.
New France made a Royal Province.
The French West India Company.
See CANADA: A. D. 1663-1674.
FRANCE: A. D. 1664.
Aid given to Austria against the Turks.
The victory of St. Gothard.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
FRANCE: A. D. 1664-1666.
War with the piratical Barbary States.
The Jijeli expedition.
Treaties with Tunis and Algiers.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
FRANCE: A. D. 1664-1690.
The building of Versailles.
See VERSAILLES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1665.
The Great Days of Auvergne.
"We must read the curious account of the Great Days of
Auvergne, written by Fléchier in his youth, if we would form
an idea of the barbarism in which certain provinces of France
were still plunged, in the midst of the brilliant civilization
of the 17th century, and would know how a large number of
those seigniors, who showed themselves so gallant and tender
in the boudoirs of Paris, lived on their estates, in the midst
of their subjects: we might imagine ourselves in the midst of
feudalism. A moment bewildered by the hammer of the great
demolisher [Richelieu], which had battered down so many
Chateaux, the mountain squires of Auvergne, Limousin, Marche
and Forez had resumed their habits under the feeble government
of Mazarin. Protected by their remoteness from Paris and the
parliament, and by the nature of the country they inhabited,
they intimidated or gained over the subaltern judges, and
committed with impunity every species of violence and
exaction. A single feature will enable us to comprehend the
state of these provinces. There were still, in the remoter
parts of Auvergne, seigniors who claimed to use the wedding
right (droit de jambage), or, at the least, to sell exemption
from this right at a high price to bridegrooms. Serfhood of
the glebe still existed in some districts. August 31, 1665, a
royal declaration, for which ample and noble reasons were
given, ordered the holding of a jurisdiction or court
'commonly called the Great Days,' in the city of Clermont, for
Auvergne, Bourbonnais, Nivernais, Forez, Beaujolais, Lyonnais,
Combrailles, Marche, and Berry. A president of parliament, a
master of requests, sixteen councillors, an attorney-general,
and a deputy procurator-general, were designated to hold these
extraordinary assizes. Their powers were almost absolute. They
were to judge without appeal all civil and criminal cases, to
punish the 'abuses and delinquencies of officers of the said
districts,' to reform bad usages, as well in the style of
procedure as in the preparation and expedition of trials, and
to try all criminal cases first. It was enjoined on bailiffs,
seneschals, their lieutenants and all other judges, to give
constant information of all kinds of crimes, in order to
prepare matter for the Great Days. A second declaration
ordered that a posse should be put into the houses of the
contumacious, that the chateaux where the least resistance was
made to the law should be razed; and forbade, under penalty of
death, the contumacious to be received or assisted.
{1236}
The publication of the royal edicts, and the prompt arrival of
Messieurs of the Great Days at Clermont, produced an
extraordinary commotion in all those regions. The people
welcomed the Parisian magistrates as liberators, and a
remarkable monument of their joy has been preserved, the
popular song or Christmas hymn of the Great Days. Terror, on
the contrary, hovered over the châteaux; a multitude of
noblemen left the province, and France, or concealed
themselves in the mountains; others endeavored to conciliate
their peasants. ... The Great Days at least did with vigor
what it was their mission to do: neither dignities, nor
titles, nor high connections preserved the guilty. ... The
Court of Great Days was not content with punishing evil; it
undertook to prevent its return by wise regulations: first,
against the abuses of seigniorial courts; second, against the
vexations of seigniors on account of feudal service due them;
third, concerning the mode and abbreviation of trials; and
lastly, concerning the reformation of the clergy, who had no
less need of being reformed than the nobility. The Great Days
were brought to a close after three months of assizes (end of
October, 1665--end of January, 1666), and their recollection
was consecrated by a medal."
H. Martin,
History of France: The Age of Louis XIV:,
volume 1, chapter 2.
FRANCE: A. D.1665-1670.
The East India Company.
See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.
FRANCE: A. D. 1666.
Alliance with Holland against England.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.
FRANCE: A. D. 1667.
The War of the Queen's Rights.
Conquests in the Spanish Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
FRANCE: A. D. 1668.
The king's conquests in Flanders checked by the Triple
Alliance.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
FRANCE: A. D. 1670.
The secret treaty of Dover.
The buying of the English king.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
FRANCE: A. D. 1672-1678.
War with Holland and the Austro-Spanish Coalition.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714;
and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674,
and 1674-1678.
FRANCE: A. D. 1673-1682.
Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi
by Marquette and La Salle.
Possession taken of Louisiana.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673, and 1669-1687.
FRANCE: A. D. 1678-1679.
The Peace of Nimeguen.
See NIMEGUEN. PEACE OF.
FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
Complete absorption of Les Trois-Evêchés and Alsace.
Assumption of entire sovereignty by Louis XIV.
Encroachments of the Chambers of Reannexation.
The seizure of Strasburg.
"The Lorraine Trois-Evêchés, recovered by France from the Holy
Roman Empire, had remained in an equivocal position, as to
public law, during nearly a century, between their old and new
ties: the treaty of Westphalia had cut the knot by the formal
renunciation of the Empire to all rights over these countries;
difficulties nevertheless still subsisted relative to the
fiefs and the pendencies of Trois-Evêchés possessed by members
of the Empire. Alsace, in its turn, from the treaty of
Westphalia to the peace of Nimeguen, had offered analogous and
still greater difficulties, this province of Teutonic tongue
not having accepted the annexation to France as easily as the
Walloon province of Trois-Evêchés, and the treaty of
Westphalia presenting two contradictory clauses, one of which
ceded to France all the rights of the Emperor and the Empire,
and the other of which reserved the 'immediateness' of the
lords and the ten cities of the prefecture of Alsace towards
the Empire. ...
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
At last, on the complaints carried to the Germanic Diet by the
ten Alsacian cities, joined by the German feudatories of
Trois-Evêchés, Louis, who was then very conciliatory towards
the Diet, consented to take for arbiters the King of Sweden
and some princes and towns of Germany (1665). The arbitration
was protracted for more than six years. In the beginning of
1672, the arbiters rendered an ambiguous decision which
decided nothing and satisfied no one. War with Holland broke
out meanwhile and changed all the relations of France with
Germany. ... Louis XIV. disarmed or took military occupation
of the ten cities and silenced all opposition. ... In the
conferences of Nimeguen, the representatives of the Emperor
and the Empire endeavored to return to the 'immediateness,'
but the King would not listen to a renewal of the arbitration,
and declared all debate superfluous. 'Not only,' said the
French plenipotentiaries, 'ought the King to exercise, as in
fact he does exercise, sovereign domain over the ten cities,
but he might also extend it over Strasburg, for the treaty of
Münster furnishes to this city no special title guaranteeing
its independence better than that of the other cities.' It was
the first time that Louis had disclosed this bold claim,
resting on an inaccurate assertion. The Imperialists,
terrified, yielded as regarded the ten cities, and Alsace was
not called in question in the treaty of Nimeguen. Only the
Imperialists protested, by a separate act, against the
conclusions which might be drawn from this omission. The ten
cities submitted and took to the King an oath of fidelity,
without reservation towards the Empire; their submission was
celebrated by a medal bearing the device: 'Alsatia in
provinciam reducta' (1680). The treaty of Nimeguen was
followed by divers measures destined to win the Alsacian
population. ... This wise policy bore its fruits, and Alsace,
tranquillized, gave no more cause of anxiety to the French
government. France was thenceforth complete mistress of the
possessions which had been ceded to her by the Empire; this
was only the first part of the work; the point in question now
was, to complete these possessions by joining to them their
natural appendages which the Empire had not alienated. The
boundaries of Lower Alsace and the Messin district were ill
defined, encroached upon, entangled, on the Rhine, on the
Sarre, and in the Vosges, by the fiefs of a host of petty
princes and German nobles. This could not be called a
frontier. Besides, in the very heart of Alsace, the great city
of Strasburg preserved its independence towards France and its
connection with the Empire. A pacific method was invented to
proceed to aggrandizements which it would seem could only be
demanded by arms; a pacific method, provided that France could
count on the weakness and irresolution of her neighbors; this
was to investigate and revendicate everything which, by any
title and at any epoch whatsoever, had been dependent on
Alsace and Trois-Evêchés.
{1237}
We may comprehend whither this would lead, thanks to the
complications of the feudal epoch; and it was not even
designed to stop at the feudal system, but to go back to the
times of the Frankish kings! Chambers of 'reannexation' were
therefore instituted, in 1679, in the Parliament of Metz, and
in the sovereign council of Alsace, with a mission which their
title sufficiently indicated. ... Among the nobles summoned,
figured the Elector of Treves, for Oberstein, Falkenburg,
etc.; the Landgrave of Hesse, for divers fiefs; the Elector
Palatine, for Seltz and the canton situated between the Lauter
and the Keich (Hogenbach, Germersheim, etc.); another prince
palatine for the county of Veldentz: the Bishop of Speyer, for
a part of his bishopric; the city of Strasburg, for the
domains which it possessed beyond the Rhine (Wasselonne and
Marlenheim); lastly, the King of Sweden, for the duchy of
Deux-Ponts or Zweibrücken, a territory of considerable extent
and of irregular form, which intersected the cis-Rhenish
Palatinate. ... By divers decrees rendered in March, August,
and October, 1680, the sovereign council of Alsace adjudged to
the King the sovereignty of all the Alsacian seigniories. The
nobles and inhabitants were summoned to swear fidelity to the
King, and the nobles were required to recognize the sovereign
council as judge in last resort. The chamber of Metz acted on
a still larger scale than the chamber of Breisach. April 12,
1680, it united to Trois-Evêchés more than 80 fiefs, the
Lorraine marquisate of Pont-à-Mousson, the principality of
Salm, the counties of Saarbourg and Veldentz, the seigniories
of Sarrebourg, Bitche, Homburg, etc. The foundation of the new
town of Sarre-Louis and the fortification of Bitche
consolidated this new frontier; and not only was the course of
the Sarre secured to France, but France, crossing the Sarre,
encroached deeply on the Palatinate and the Electorate of
Treves, posted herself on the Nahe and the Blies, and threw,
as an advance-guard, on a peninsula of the Moselle, the
fortress of Mont-Royal, half-way from Treves to Coblentz, on
the territories of the county of Veldentz. The parliament of
Franche-Comté, newly French as it was, zealously followed the
example of the two neighboring courts. There was also a
frontier to round towards the Jura. ... The Duke of Würtemberg
was required to swear allegiance to the King for his county of
Montbéliard. ... The acquisitions made were trifling compared
with those which remained to be made. He [Louis XIV.] was not
sure of the Rhine, not sure of Alsace, so long as he had not
Strasburg, the great city always ready to throw upon the
French bank of the river the armies of the Empire. France had
long aimed at this conquest. As soon as she possessed Metz she
had dreamed of Strasburg. ... Though the King and Louvois had
prevented Créqui from besieging the place during the war, it
was because they counted on surprising it after peace. This
great enterprise was most ably manœuvred." The members of the
regency of the city were gained over, one by one. "The
Imperial troops had evacuated the city pursuant to the treaty
of Nimeguen; the magistrates dismissed 1,200 Swiss which the
city had in its pay; then, on the threatening demands of the
French, they demolished anew Fort Kehl, which they had rebuilt
since its destruction by Créqui. When the fruit seemed ripe,
Louis stretched out his hand to gather it. In the latter part
of September, 1681, the garrisons of Lorraine, Franche-Comté,
and Alsace put themselves in motion. ... The 28th, 35,000 men
were found assembled before the city; Baron de Montclar, who
commanded this army, informed the magistrates that 'the
sovereign chamber of Breisach having adjudged to the king the
sovereignty of all Alsace, of which Strasburg was a member,
his Majesty desired that they should recognize him as their
sovereign lord, and receive a garrison." On the 30th the
capitulation of the city was signed; on the 23d of October the
King entered Strasburg in person and was received as its
sovereign.
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 7.
FRANCE: A. D. 1680.
Imprisonment of the "Man in the Iron Mask."
See IRON MASK.
FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1684.
Threatening relations with the Turks.
War with the Barbary States.
Destructive bombardment of Algiers.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.
Climax of the persecution of the Huguenots.
The Dragonnades.
The revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
The great exodus of French Protestants and the consequent
national loss.
"Love and war suspended for a considerable time" the ambition
of the king to extinguish heresy in his dominions and
establish uniformity of religious worship; "but when Louis
became satiated at once with glory and pleasure, and when
Madame de Maintenon, the Duke de Beauvilliers, the Duke de
Montausier, Bossuet, the Archbishop of Rheims, the Chancellor
Letellier, and all the religious portion of the court, began
to direct his now unoccupied and scrupulous mind to the
interests of religion, Louis XIV. returned to his plans with
renewed ardor. From bribery they proceeded to compulsion.
Missionaries, escorted by dragoons, spread themselves at the
instigation of Bossuet, and even of Fénelon, over the western,
southern and eastern provinces, and particularly in those
districts throughout which Protestantism, more firmly rooted
among a more tenacious people, had as yet resisted all
attempts at conversion by preaching. ... Children from above
seven years of age were authorized to abjure legally the
religion of their fathers. The houses of those parents who
refused to deliver up their sons and daughters were invaded
and laid under contributions by the royal troops. The
expropriation of their homes, and the tearing asunder of
families, compelled the people to fly from persecution. The
king, uneasy at this growing depopulation, pronounced the
punishment of the galleys against those who sought liberty in
flight; he also ordered the confiscation of all the lands and
houses which were sold by those proprietors who were preparing
to quit the kingdom. ... Very soon the proscription was
organized en masse: all the cavalry in the kingdom, who, on
account of the peace, were unemployed, were placed at the
disposal of the preachers and bishops, to uphold their
missions [known as the dragonnades] with the sabre. ...
Bossuet approved of these persecutions. Religious and
political faith, in his eyes, justified their necessity. His
correspondence is full of evidence, while his actions prove
that he was an accomplice: even his eloquence ... overflowed
with approbation of, and enthusiasm for, these oppressions of
the soul and terrors of heresy."
A. de Lamartine,
Memoirs of Celebrated Characters,
volume 3: Bossuet.
{1238}
"The heroism of conviction, it has been truly said, was now
displayed, not in resistance, but, if the paradox may be
admitted, in flight. The outflow was for the moment arrested
at the remonstrance of Colbert, now for the last time listened
to in the royal councils, and by reason of the sympathy
aroused by the fugitives in England: but not before 3,000
families had left the country. The retirement and death of the
great minister were the signal for revived action, wherever an
assembly of Huguenots larger than usual might warrant or
colour a suspicion of rebellion. In such excuses, not as yet
an avowed crusade, the troopers of the duke de Noailles were
called in at Grenoble, Bourdeaux, and Nimes. Full forty
churches were demolished in 1683, more than a hundred in 1684.
But the system of military missions was not organized until in
1685 the defence of the Spanish frontier offered the
opportunity for a final subjugation of the Huguenots of Bearn.
The dragonnade passed through the land like a pestilence. From
Guienne to Dauphine, from Poitou to Upper Languedoc, no place
was spared. Then it pervaded the southeast country, about the
Cevennes and Provence, and ravaged Lyons and the Pays de Gex.
In the end, the whole of the north was assailed, and the
failing edict of Nantes was annulled on the 1st of October.
The sombre mind of Madame de Maintenon had postulated the
Recall as a preliminary to the marriage which the king had
already conceded. On the 21st of the month the great church at
Charenton was doomed; and on the 22nd the 'unadvised and
precipitate' Edict of Revocation was registered in the Chambre
des Vacations. ... The year 1685 is fitly identified with the
depopulation of France. And yet, with a blindness that appears
to us incredible, the government refused to believe in the
desire or the possibility of escape. The penalties attached to
capture on the road,--the galleys or the nunnery,--the
vigilant watch at the frontier, the frigates cruising by every
coast, all these difficulties seem to have persuaded Louvois
that few would persist in risking flight. What these measures
actually effected was doubtless to diminish the exodus, but in
no marked degree. At length, it came to be thought that the
emigration was due to its prohibition, as though the Huguenots
must do a thing from mere perverseness. The watch was relaxed,
and a result unlooked for issued. It was the signal of the
greatest of the emigrations, that of 1688. ... In the
statistical question [as to the total number of the Huguenot
exiles from France after the revocation of the edict of
Nantes] it is impossible to arrive at a certain result; and
the range which calculation or conjecture has allowed to
successive historians may make one pause before attempting a
dogmatic solution. Basnage, a year after the Recall, reckoned
the emigrants above 150,000: next year Jurieu raised the total
above 200,000. Writing later Basnage found between 300,000 and
400,000; and the estimate has been accepted by Sismondi.
Lastly Voltaire, followed in our own day by Hase, counted
500,000. These are a few of the sober calculations, and their
mean will perhaps supply the ultimate figure. I need only
mention, among impossible guesses, that of Limiers, which
raises the account to 800,000, because it has been taken up by
the Prussian statesman Von Dohm. ... The only historian who
professes to have pursued the enquiry in exact detail is
Capefigue; and from his minute scrutiny of the cartons des
généralités, as prepared in the closing years of the 17th
century, he obtains a computation of 225,000 or 230,000. Such
a result must be accepted as the absolute minimum; for it was
the plain interest of the intendants who drew up the returns,
to put all the facts which revealed the folly of the king's
action at the lowest cipher. And allowing the accuracy of
Capefigue's work, there are other reasons for increasing his
total. ... We cannot set the emigration at a lower fraction
than one-fifth of the total Huguenot society. If the body
numbered two millions, the outflow will be 400,000. If this
appear an extreme estimate, it must be remembered that
one-fifth is also extreme on the other side. Reducing the
former aggregate to 1,500,000, it will be clearly within the
bounds of moderation to leave the total exodus a range between
300,000 and 350,000. How are we to distribute this immense
aggregation? Holland certainly claims near 100,000; England,
with Ireland and America, probably 80,000. Switzerland must
have received 25,000; and Germany, including Brandenburg,
thrice that number. The remainder will be made up from the
north of Europe, and from the exiles whom commerce or other
causes carried in isolated households elsewhere, and of whom
no record is preserved to us. ... The tale then of the
emigrants was above 300,000. It follows to ask what was the
material loss involved in their exodus. Caveirac is again the
lowest in his estimate: he will not grant the export of more
than 250,000 livres. He might have learnt from Count d'Avaux
himself, that those least likely to magnify the sum confessed
that by the very year of the Recall twenty million livres had
gone out of the country; and it is certain that the wealthier
merchants deferred their departure in order to carry as much
as they could with them. Two hundred and fifty traders are
said to have quitted Rouen in 1687 and 1688. Probably the
actual amount was very far in excess of these twenty millions:
and a calculation is cited by Macpherson which even affirms
that every individual refugee in England brought with him on
an average money or effects to the value of £60. ... It will
be needless to add many statistics of the injury caused by
their withdrawal from France. Two great instances are typical
of the rest. Lyons which had employed 18,000 silk-looms had
but 4,000 remaining by the end of the century. Tours with the
same interest had had 800 mills, 80,000 looms, and perhaps
4,000 work-people. Of its 3,000 ribbon-factories only sixty
remained: Equally significant was the ruin of the woollen
trade of Poitou. Little was left of the drugget-manufacture of
Coulonges and Châtaigneraie, or of the industry in serges and
bombazines at Thouars; and the export traffic between
Châtaigneraie and Canada, by way of La Rochelle, was in the
last year of the century absolutely extinct."
R. L. Poole,
History of the Huguenots of the Dispersion,
chapters 3 and 15.
ALSO IN:
C. Weiss,
History of the French Protestant Refugees.
N. Peyrat,
The Pastors in the Wilderness,
volume 1, chapters 5-7.
A. Maury,
Memoirs of a Huguenot Family
(Fontaine), chapters 4-9.
J. I. von Döllinger,
Studies in European History,
chapters 11-12.
C. W. Baird,
History of the Huguenot Emigration to America,
chapters 4-8 (volumes 1-2).
FRANCE: A. D. 1686.
Claims upon the Palatinate.
Formation of the League of Augsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
{1239}
FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
War of the League of Augsburg.
The second devastation of the Palatinate.
"The interference of Lewis in Ireland on behalf of James [the
Second, the dethroned Stuart king] caused William [prince of
Orange, now King of England] to mature his plans for a great
Continental confederacy against France. On May 12, 1689,
William, as Stadtholder of the United Provinces, had entered
into an offensive and defensive alliance with the Emperor
against Lewis. On May 17, as King of England, he declared war
against France; and on December 30 joined the alliance between
the Emperor and the Dutch. His example was followed on June 6,
1690, by the King of Spain, and on October 20 of the same year
by Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy. This confederation was
called the 'Grand Alliance.' Its main object was declared to
be to curb the power and ambition of Lewis XIV.; to force him
to surrender his conquests, and to confine his territories to
the limits agreed upon between him and the Emperor at the
treaty of Westphalia (1648), and between France and Spain at
the treaty of the Pyrenees (1659). The League of Augsburg,
which William had with so much trouble brought about, had now
successfully developed into the Grand Alliance."
E. Hale,
The Fall of the Stuarts and Western Europe,
chapter 14, section 5.
"The work at which William had toiled indefatigably during
many gloomy and anxious years was at length accomplished. The
great coalition was formed. It was plain that a desperate
conflict was at hand. The oppressor of Europe would have to
defend himself against England allied with Charles the Second
King of Spain, with the Emperor Leopold, and with the Germanic
and Batavian federations, and was likely to have no ally
except the Sultan, who was waging war against the House of
Austria on the Danube. Lewis had, towards the close of the
preceding year, taken his enemies at a disadvantage, and had
struck the first blow before they were prepared to parry it.
But that blow, though heavy, was not aimed at the part where
it might have been mortal. Had hostilities been commenced on
the Batavian frontier, William and his army would probably
have been detained on the continent, and James might have
continued to govern England. Happily, Lewis, under an
infatuation which many pious Protestants confidently ascribed
to the righteous judgment of God, had neglected the point on
which the fate of the whole civilised world depended, and had
made a great display of power, promptitude, and energy, in a
quarter where the most splendid achievements could produce
nothing more than an illumination and a Te Deum. A French army
under the command of Marshal Duras had invaded the Palatinate
and some of the neighbouring principalities. But this
expedition, though it had been completely successful, and
though the skill and vigour with which it had been conducted
had excited general admiration, could not perceptibly affect
the event of the tremendous struggle which was approaching.
France would soon be attacked on every side. It would be
impossible for Duras long to retain possession of the
provinces which he had surprised and overrun. An atrocious
thought rose in the mind of Louvois, who, in military affairs,
had the chief sway at Versailles. ... The ironhearted
statesman submitted his plan, probably with much management
and with some disguise, to Lewis; and Lewis, in an evil hour
for his fame, assented. Duras received orders to turn one of
the fairest regions of Europe into a wilderness. Fifteen years
had elapsed since Turenne had ravaged part of that fine
country. But the ravages committed by Turenne, though they
have left a deep stain on his glory, were mere sport in
comparison with the horrors of this second devastation. The
French commander announced to near half a million of human
beings that he granted them three days of grace, and that,
within that time, they must shift for themselves. Soon the
roads and fields, which then lay deep in snow, were blackened
by innumerable multitudes of men, women, and children flying
from their homes. Many died of cold and hunger: but enough
survived to fill the streets of all the cities of Europe with
lean and squalid beggars, who had once been thriving farmers
and shopkeepers. Meanwhile the work of destruction began. The
flames went up from every marketplace, every hamlet, every
parish church, every country seat, within the devoted
provinces. The fields where the corn had been sown were
ploughed up. The orchards were hewn down. No promise of a
harvest was left on the fertile plains near what had once been
Frankenthal. Not a vine, not an almond tree, was to be seen on
the slopes of the sunny hills round what had once been
Heidelberg. No respect was shown to palaces, to temples, to
monasteries, to infirmaries, to beautiful works of art, to
monuments of the illustrious dead. The far-famed castle of the
Elector Palatine was turned into a heap of ruins. The
adjoining hospital was sacked. The provisions, the medicines,
the pallets on which the sick lay, were destroyed. The very
stones on which Manheim had been built were flung into the
Rhine. The magnificent Cathedral of Spires perished, and with
it the marble sepulchres of eight Cæsars. The coffins were
broken open. The ashes were scattered to the winds. Treves,
with its fair bridge, its Roman baths and amphitheatre, its
venerable churches, convents, and colleges, was doomed to the
same fate. But, before this last crime had been perpetrated,
Lewis was recalled to a better mind by the execrations of all
the neighbouring nations, by the silence and confusion of his
flatterers, and by the expostulations of his wife. ... He
relented; and Treves was spared. In truth he could hardly fail
to perceive that he had committed a great error. The
devastation of the Palatinate, while it had not in any
sensible degree lessened the power of his enemies, had
inflamed their animosity, and had furnished them with
inexhaustible matter for invective. The cry of vengeance rose
on every side. Whatever scruple either branch of the House of
Austria might have felt about coalescing with Protestants was
completely removed."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2.
S. A. Dunham,
History of the German Empire,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume. 3).
See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.
FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
Aid to James II. in Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
{1240}
FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
Campaigns in the Netherlands and in Savoy.
"Our limits will not permit us to describe at any length the
war between Louis XIV. and the Grand Alliance, which lasted
till the Peace of Ryswick, in 1697, but only to note some of
the chief incidents of the different campaigns. The
Imperialists had, in 1689, notwithstanding the efforts it was
still necessary to make against the Turks, brought an army of
80,000 men into the field, which was divided into three bodies
under the command of the Duke of Lorraine, the Elector of
Bavaria, and the Elector of Brandenburg; while the Prince of
Waldeck, in the Netherlands, was at the head of a large Dutch
and Spanish force, composed, however, in great part of German
mercenaries. In this quarter, Marshal d'Humières was opposed
to Waldeck, while Duras commanded the French army on the
Rhine. In the south, the Duke of Noailles maintained a French
force in Catalonia. Nothing of much importance was done this
year; but on the whole the war went in favour of the
imperialists, who succeeded in recovering Mentz and Bonn.
1690: This year, Marshal d'Humières was superseded by the Duke
of Luxembourg, who infused more vigour into the French
operations. ... Catinat was sent this year into Dauphiné to
watch the movements of the Duke of Savoy, who was suspected by
the French Court, and not without reason, of favouring the
Grand Alliance. The extravagant demands of Louis, who required
Victor Amadeus to unite his troops with the army of Catinat,

and to admit a French garrison into Vercelli, Verrua, and even
the citadel of Turin itself, till a general peace should be
effected, caused the Duke to enter into treaties with Spain
and the Emperor, June 3d and 4th; and on October 20th, he
joined the Grand Alliance by a treaty concluded at the Hague
with England and the States-General. This last step was taken
by Victor Amadeus in consequence of his reverses. He had
sustained from Catinat in the battle of Staffarda (August
17th) a defeat which only the skill of a youthful general, his
cousin the Prince Eugene, had saved from becoming a total
rout. As the fruits of this victory, Catinat occupied Saluzzo,
Susa, and all the country from the Alps to the Tanaro. During
these operations another French division had reduced, without
much resistance, the whole of Savoy, except the fortress of
Montmélian. The only other event of importance during this
campaign was the decisive victory gained by Luxembourg over
Prince Waldeck at Fleurus, July 1st. The captured standards,
more than a hundred in number, which Luxembourg sent to Paris
on this occasion, obtained for him the name of the 'Tapassier
de Notre Dame.' Luxembourg was, however, prevented from
following up his victory by the orders of Louvois, who forbade
him to lay siege to Namur or Charleroi. Thus, in this
campaign, France maintained her preponderance on land as well
as at sea by the victory off Beachy Head. ...
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1690.
The Imperialists had this year lost one of their best leaders
by the death of the Duke of Lorraine (April). He was succeeded
as commander-in-chief by Maximilian Emanuel, Elector of
Bavaria; but nothing of importance took place upon the Rhine.
1691: The campaign of this year was singularly barren of
events, though both the French and English kings took a
personal part in it. In March, Louis and Luxembourg, laid
siege to Mons, the capital of Hainault, which surrendered in
less than three weeks. King William, who was in the
neighbourhood, could not muster sufficient troops to venture
on its relief. Nothing further of importance was done in this
quarter, and the campaign in Germany was equally a blank. On
the side of Piedmont, Catinat took Nice, but, being confronted
by superior numbers, was forced to evacuate Piedmont; though,
by way of compensation, he completed the conquest of Savoy by
the capture of Montmélian. Noailles gained some trifling
successes in Spain; and the celebrated French corsair, Jean
Bart, distinguished himself by his enterprises at sea. One of
the most remarkable events of the year was a domestic
occurrence, the death of Louvois."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 44 (volume 5).
FRANCE: A. D. 1692.
The taking of Namur and the victory of Steinkirk, or
Steenkerke.
Never perhaps in the whole course of his unresting life were
the energies of William [of Orange] more severely taxed, and
never did his great moral and intellectual qualities shine
forth with a brighter lustre, than in the years 1692-93.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
The great victory of La Hogue and the destruction of the
flower of the French fleet did, it is true, relieve England of
any immediate dread either of insurrection or invasion, and so
far the prospect before him acquired a slight improvement
towards the summer of 1692. But this was the only gleam of
light in the horizon. ... The great coalition of Powers which
he had succeeded in forming to resist the ambition of Louis
was never nearer dissolution than in the spring of 1692. The
Scandinavian states, who had held aloof from it from the
first, were now rapidly changing the benevolence of their
neutrality into something not easily distinguishable from its
reverse. The new Pope Innocent XII. showed himself far less
amicably disposed towards William than his two predecessors.
The decrepitude of Spain and the arrogant self-will of Austria
were displaying themselves more conspicuously than ever. Savoy
was ruled by a duke who was more than half suspected of being
a traitor. ... William did succeed in saving the league from
dissolution, and in getting their armies once more into the
field. But not, unfortunately, to any purpose. The campaign of
the present year was destined to repeat the errors of the
last, and these errors were to be paid for at a heavier cost.
... The French king was bent upon the capture of the great
stronghold of Namur, and the enemy, as in the case of Mons,
were too slow in their movements and too ineffective in their
dispositions to prevent it. Marching to the assault of the
doomed city, with a magnificence of courtly pageantry which
had never before been witnessed in warfare, Louis sat down
before Namur, and in eight days its faint-hearted governor,
the nominee of the Spanish viceroy of the Netherlands,
surrendered at discretion. Having accomplished, or rather
having graciously condescended to witness the accomplishment
of this feat of arms, Louis returned to Versailles, leaving
his army under the command of Luxembourg. The fall of Namur
was a severe blow to the hopes of William, but yet worse
disasters were in store for him. He was now pitted against one
who enjoyed the reputation of the greatest general of the age,
and William, a fair but by no means brilliant strategist, was
unequal to the contest with his accomplished adversary.
{1241}
Luxembourg lay at Steinkirk, and William approaching him from
a place named Lambeque, opened his attack upon him by a
well-conceived surprise which promised at first to throw the
French army into complete disorder. Luxembourg's resource and
energy, however, were equal to the emergency. He rallied and
steadied his troops with astonishing speed, and the nature of
the ground preventing the allies from advancing as rapidly as
they had expected, they found the enemy in a posture to
receive them. The British forces were in the front, commanded
by Count Solmes, the division of Mackay, a name now honourable
for many generations in the annals of continental, no less
than of Scottish, warfare, leading the way. These heroes, for
so, though as yet untried soldiers, they approved themselves,
were to have been supported by Count Solmes with a strong body
of cavalry and infantry, but at the critical moment he failed
them miserably, and his failure decided the fortunes of the
day. ... The division was practically annihilated. Its five
regiments, 'Cutt's, Mackay's, Angus's, Graham's, and Leven's,
all,' as Corporal Trim relates pathetically, cut to pieces,
and so had the English Life-guards been too, had it not been
for some regiments on the right, who marched up boldly to
their relief, and, received the enemy's fire in their faces,
before anyone of their own platoons discharged a musket.'
Bitter was the resentment in the English army at the desertion
of these gallant troops by Count de Solmes, and William gave
vent to one of his rare outbursts of anger at the sight. We
have it indeed on the authority above quoted--unimpeachable as
first-hand tradition, for Sterne had heard the story of these
wars at the knees of an eye-witness of and actor in them--that
the King 'would not suffer the Count to come into his presence
for many months after.' The destruction of Mackay's division
had indeed decided the issue of the struggle. Luxembourg's
army was being rapidly strengthened by reinforcements from
that of Boufflers, and there was nothing for it but retreat.
The loss on both sides had been great, but the moral effect of
the victory was still greater. William's reputation for
generalship, perhaps unduly raised by his recent exploits in
Ireland, underwent a serious decline."
H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapter 10.
On the Rhine and on the Spanish frontier nothing of importance
occurred during 1692. The Duke of Savoy gained some advantages
on his side and invaded Dauphiny, without any material result.
The invasion called into action a young heroine, Mademoiselle
de La Tour-du-Pin, whose portrait has a place at Saint-Denis
by the side of that of Jeanne D'Arc.
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 20.
FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (July).
The Battle of Neerwinden, or Landen.
"Lewis had determined not to make any advance towards a
reconciliation with the new government of England till the
whole strength of his realm had been put forth in one more
effort. A mighty effort in truth it was, but too exhausting to
be repeated. He made an immense display of force at once on
the Pyrenees and on the Alps, on the Rhine and on the Meuse,
in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean. That nothing might
be wanting which could excite the martial ardour of a nation
eminently high-spirited, he instituted, a few days before he
left his palace for the camp, a new military order of
knighthood, and placed it under the protection of his own
sainted ancestor and patron. The cross of Saint Lewis shone on
the breasts of the gentlemen who had been conspicuous in the
trenches before Mons and Namur, and on the fields of Fleurus
and Steinkirk. ... On the 18th of May Lewis left Versailles.
Early in June he was under the walls of Namur. The Princesses,
who had accompanied him, held their court within the fortress. He
took under his immediate command the army of Boufflers, which
was encamped at Gembloux. Little more than a mile off lay the
army of Luxemburg. The force collected in that neighbourhood
under the French lilies did not amount to less than 120,000
men. Lewis had flattered himself that he should be able to
repeat in 1693 the stratagem by which Mons had been taken in
1691 and Namur in 1692; and he had determined that either
Liege or Brussels should be his prey. But William had this
year been able to assemble in good time a force, inferior
indeed to that which was opposed to him, but still formidable.
With this force he took his post near Louvain, on the road
between the two threatened cities, and watched every movement
of the enemy. ... Just at this conjuncture Lewis announced his
intention to return instantly to Versailles, and to send the
Dauphin and Boufflers, with part of the army which was
assembled near Namur, to join Marshal Lorges who commanded in
the Palatinate. Luxemburg was thunderstruck. He expostulated
boldly and earnestly. Never, he said, was such an opportunity
thrown away. ... The Marshal reasoned: he implored: he went on
his knees: but all was vain; and he quitted the royal presence
in the deepest dejection. Lewis left the camp a week after he
had joined it, and never afterwards made war in person. ...
Though the French army in the Netherlands had been weakened by
the departure of the forces commanded by the Dauphin and
Boufflers, and though the allied army was daily strengthened
by the arrival of fresh troops, Luxemburg still had a
superiority of force; and that superiority he increased by an
adroit stratagem." He succeeded by a feint in inducing William
to detach 20,000 men from his army and to send them to Liege.
He then moved suddenly upon the camp of the allies, with
80,000 men, and found but 50,000 to oppose him. "It was still
in the [English] King's power, by a hasty retreat, to put
between his army and the enemy the narrow, but deep, waters of
the Gette, which had lately been swollen by rains. But the
site which he occupied was strong; and it could easily be made
still stronger. He set all his troops to work. Ditches were
dug, mounds thrown up, palisades fixed in the earth. In a few
hours the ground wore a new aspect; and the King trusted that
he should be able to repel the attack even of a force greatly
outnumbering his own. ... On the left flank, the village of
Romsdorff rose close to the little stream of Landen, from
which the English have named the disastrous day. On the right
was the village of Neerwinden. Both villages were, after the
fashion of the Low Countries, surrounded by moats and fences.
"Notwithstanding the strength of the position held by the
allies, and the valor with which they defended it, they were
driven out of Neerwinden [July 29]--but only after the
shattered village had been five times taken and retaken--and
across the Gette, in confusion and with heavy loss.
{1242}
"The French were victorious: but they had bought their victory
dear. More then 10,000 of the best troops of Lewis had fallen.
Neerwinden was a spectacle at which the oldest soldiers stood
aghast. The streets were piled breast high with corpses. Among
the slain were some great lords and some renowned warriors.
... The region, renowned as the battle field, through many
ages, of the greatest powers of Europe, has seen only two more
terrible days, the day of Malplaquet and the day of Waterloo.
... There was no pursuit, though the sun was still high in the
heaven when William crossed the Gette. The conquerors were so
much exhausted by marching and fighting that they could
scarcely move. ... A very short delay was enough for William.
... Three weeks after his defeat he held a review a few miles
from Brussels. The number of men under arms was greater than
on the morning of the bloody day of Landen: their appearance
was soldierlike; and their spirit seemed unbroken. William now
wrote to Heinsius that the worst was over. 'The crisis,' he
said, 'has been a terrible one. Thank God that it has ended
thus.' He did not, however, think it prudent to try at that
time the event of another pitched field. He therefore suffered
the French to besiege and take Charleroi; and this was the
only advantage which they derived from the most sanguinary
battle fought in Europe during the seventeenth century."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 20 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 5 (1693), volume 4.
Duc de Saint-Simon,
Memoirs (translated by St. John),
volume 1, chapter 4.
FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (October).
Defeat of the Duke of Savoy at Marsaglia.
"The great efforts made by Louis in the north prevented him
from strengthening the army of Catinat sufficiently to act
with energy against the Savoyard prince, and it was determined
to restrict the campaign of 1693 to the defensive on the part
of France. The forces of the duke had in the meantime been
reinforced from Germany, and he opened the campaign with a
brilliant and successful movement against Pignerol. ... He is
said to have entertained hopes of carrying the war in that one
campaign to the very gates of Lyons; but the successes which
inspired him with such expectations alarmed the court of
France, and Louis detached in haste a large body of cavalry to
reinforce Catinat. That general marched at once to fight the Duke
of Savoy, who, presuming on his strength, suffered the French
to pour out from the valley of Suza into the plain of
Piedmont, abandoned the heights, and was consequently defeated
at Marsaglia on the 4th of October. Catinat, however, could not
profit by his victory; he was too ill supplied in every
respect to undertake the siege of Coni, and the state of the
French armies at this time marks as plainly that Louvois was
dead, as the state of the finances speaks the loss of
Colbert."
G. P. R. James,
Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 11.
FRANCE: A. D. 1694.
Campaigns without battles.
Operations at sea.
In 1694, King William was "in a position to keep an army afoot
in the Netherlands stronger than any had hitherto been. It was
reckoned at 31,800 horse, including a corps of dragoons, and
58,000 foot; so great a force had never been seen within the
memory of man. All the best-known generals, who had hitherto
taken part in the wars of western Europe, were gathered round
him with their troops. The French army, with which the
Dauphin, but not the King, was present, was not much smaller;
it was once more led by Marshal Luxembourg. These two hosts
lay over against one another in their camps for a couple of
months; neither offered battle to the other. ... This campaign
is notable in the annals of the art of war for the skill with
which each force pursued or evaded the other; but the results
were limited to the recovery by the allies of that unimportant
place, Huy. William had thought himself fortunate in having
come out of the previous campaign without disaster: in this
campaign the French were proud to have held their lines in
presence of a superior force. On the coast also the French
were successful in repelling a most vehement and perilous
attack. They had been warned that the English were going to
fall on Brest, and Vauban was sent down there in haste to
organise the defence; and in this he was thoroughly
successful. When the English landed on the coast in Camaret
Bay (for the fort of that name had first to be taken) they
were saluted by two batteries, which they had never detected,
and which were so well placed that every shot told, and the
grape-shot wounded almost every man who had ventured ashore.
The gallant General, Talmash, was also hit, and ere long died
of his wounds. The English fleet, which had come to bombard
Brest, was itself bombarded from the walls. But though this
great effort failed, the English fleet still held the mastery
of the Channel: it also blockaded the northern coast of
France. After Brest it attacked Dieppe, laying it almost
entirely in ashes; thence it sailed to Havre, and St. Malo, to
Calais, and Dunkirk. This was of great use in the conduct of
the war. King William observes that had not the coasts been
kept in a state of alarm, all the forces detained there for
defensive purposes would have been thrown on the Netherlands.
... But the most important result of the maritime war lay on
another side. In May, 1694, Noailles pushed into Catalonia,
supported by Tourville, who lay at anchor with the fleet in
the Bay of Rosas. ... It was of incalculable importance to
Spain to be in alliance with the maritime powers. Strengthened
by a Dutch fleet and some Spanish ships, Admiral Russell now
appeared in the Mediterranean. He secured Barcelona from the
French, who would never have been kept out of the city by the
Spaniards alone. The approach of the English fleet had at this
time the greatest influence in keeping the Duke of Savoy
staunch to the confederation. In Germany the rise of the house
of Hanover to the Electoral dignity had now caused most
unpleasant complications. A shoal of German princes, headed by
the King of Denmark, as a Prince of the Empire, and offended
by the preference shown to Hanover, inclined, if not to
alliance with France, at least to neutrality. ... We can have
no conception, and in this place we cannot possibly
investigate, with what unbroken watchfulness King William,
supported by Heinsius, looked after the German and the
Northern courts, so as to keep their irritation from reacting
on the course of the great war. ... When the French, in June,
1694, crossed the Rhine, meaning, as they boasted with true
Gallic arrogance, soon to dip their swords in the Danube, they
found the Prince of Baden so well prepared, and posted so
strongly near Wisloch, that they did not venture to attack
him. ... The general result is this: neither side was as yet
really superior to the other: but the French power was
everywhere checked and held within bounds by the arms and
influence of William III."
L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 20, chapter 6 (volume 5).
{1243}
FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.
The end of the War of the League of Augsburg.
Loss of Namur.
Terms with Savoy.
The Peace of Ryswick.
"Military and naval efforts were relaxed on all sides: on the
Rhine the Prince of Baden and the Marechal de Lorges, both ill
in health, did little but observe each other; and though the
Duke of Savoy made himself master of Casal on the 11th July,
1695, no other military event of any consequence took place on
the side of Italy, where Louis entered into negotiations with
the duke, and succeeded, in the following year, in detaching
him from the league of Augsburg. As the price of his defection
the whole of his territories were to be restored to him, with
the exception of Suza, Nice, and Montmeillan, which were
promised to be delivered also on the signature of a general
peace. Money was added to render the consent of a needy prince
more ready. ... The duke promised to obtain from the emperor a
pledge that Italy should be considered as neutral ground, and
if the allies refused such a pledge, then to join the forces
of Savoy to those of France, and give a free passage to the
French through his dominions. In consequence of this treaty
... he applied to the emperor for a recognition of the
neutrality of Italy, and was refused. He then hastened, with a
facility which distinguished him through life, to abandon his
friends and join his enemies, and within one month was
generalissimo for the emperor in Italy fighting against
France, and generalissimo for the King of France in Italy
fighting against the emperor. Previous to this change,
however, the King of England opened the campaign of 1695 in
the Netherlands by the siege of Namur. The death of Luxemburg
had placed the French army of Flanders under the command of
the incapable Marshal Villeroi: and William, feeling that his
enemy was no longer to be much respected, assumed at once the
offensive. He concealed his design upon Namur under a variety
of manœuvres which kept the French generals in suspense; and,
then leaving the Prince of Vaudemont to protect the principal
Spanish towns in Flanders, he collected his troops suddenly;
and while the Duke of Bavaria invested Namur, he covered the
operations of the siege with a considerable force. Villeroi
now determined to attack the Prince of Vaudemont, but twice
suffered him to escape: and then, after having apparently
hesitated for some time how to drive or draw the King of
England from the attack upon Namur, he resolved to bombard the
city of Brussels, never pretending to besiege it, but alleging
as his motive for a proceeding which was merely destructive,
the bombardment of the maritime towns of France by the
English. During three days he continued to fire upon the city,
ruining a great part thereof, and then withdrew to witness the
surrender of the citadel of Namur on the 2nd September, the
town itself having capitulated on the 4th of the preceding
month. As some compensation, though but a poor one, for the
loss of Namur, and the disgrace of the French arms in
suffering such a city to be captured in the presence of 80,000
men, Montal took Dixmude and Deynse in the course of June. ...
The only after-event of any importance which occurred in
Flanders during this war, was the capture of Ath by the
French, in the year 1697, while negotiations for peace were
going on with activity at Ryswick. ... Regular communications
regarding peace having been once established, Ryswick, near
the Hague, was appointed for the meeting of plenipotentiaries;
and Harlay, Torci, and Callières appeared at that place as
representatives of Louis. The articles which had been formerly
sketched out at Utrecht formed the base of the treaties now
agreed upon; and Louis yielded far more than could have been
expected from one so proud and so successful."
G. P. R. James,
Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 3, chapter 5.
Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
part 3, book 4 (volume 3).
FRANCE: A. D. 1697 (April).
The sacking of Carthagena.
See CARTHAGENA: A. D. 1697.
FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
"The Congress for the treaty or series of treaties that was to
terminate the great European war, which had now lasted for
upwards of nine years, was held at Ryswick, a château near the
Hague. The conferences were opened in May, 1697. Among the
countries represented were Sweden, Austria, France, Spain,
England, Holland, Denmark and the various States of the German
Empire. The treaties were signed, in severalty, between the
different States, except Austria, in September and October,
1697, and with the Emperor, in November. The principal
features of the treaty were, as between France and Spain,
that, the former country was to deliver to Spain Barcelona,
and other places in Catalonia; also various places which
France had taken in the Spanish Netherlands, during the war,
including Luxembourg and its Duchy, Charleroi, Mons and
Courtrai. Various others were excepted, to be retained by
France, as dependencies of French possessions. The principal
stipulations of the treaty, as between France and Great
Britain, were that France formally recognized William III. as
lawful king of Great Britain, and agreed not to trouble him in
the possession of his dominions, and not to assist his
enemies, directly or indirectly. This article had particular
relation to the partisans of the exiled Stuart king, then
living in France. By another article, all places taken by
either country in America, during the war, were to be
relinquished, and the Principality of Orange and its estates
situated in the south of France were to be restored to
William. In the treaty with Holland, certain possessions in
the East Indies were to be restored to the Dutch East India
Company: and important articles of commerce were appended,
among which the principle was laid down that free ships should
make free goods, not contraband of war. By the treaty with the
Emperor and the German States, the Treaties of Westphalia and
Nymeguen were recognized as the basis of the Treaty of
Ryswick, with such exceptions only as were to be provided in
the latter treaty. France also was to give up all territory
she had occupied or controlled before or during the war under
the name of 'reunions,' outside of Alsace, but the Roman
Catholic religion was to be preserved in Alsace as it then
existed.
{1244}
This concession by France included among other places
Freiburg, Brisach, and Treves; and certain restitutions were
to be made by France, in favor of Spire, the Electors of
Treves, and Brandenburg and the Palatinate; also, others in
favor of certain of the smaller German Princes. The city of
Strasburg, in return, was formally ceded to France, ... and
the important fort of Kehl was yielded to the Empire. The
navigation of the Rhine was to be free to all persons. The
Duke of Lorraine was to be restored to his possessions with
such exceptions as were provided in the treaty. By the terms
of this treaty, a more advantageous peace was given to Spain
than she had any expectation of. ... Not only were the places
taken in Spain, including the numerous fortified places in
Catalonia, yielded up, but also, with some exceptions, those
in the Spanish Netherlands, and also the important territory
of Luxembourg; some places were even yielded to Spain that
France had gained under former treaties."
J. W. Gerard,
The Peace of Utrecht,
chapter 4.
"The restitutions and cessions [from France to Germany]
comprised Treves, Germersheim, Deux-Ponts, Veldentz,
Montbéliard, Kehl, Freiburg, Breisach, Philippsburg, the
Emperor and the Empire ceding in exchange Strasbourg to the
King of France in complete sovereignty. ... Louis XIV. had
consented somewhat to relax the rigor of the treaty of
Nimeguen towards the heir of the Duchy of Lorraine, nephew of
the Emperor by his mother; he restored to the young Duke
Leopold his inheritance in the condition in which Charles IV.
had possessed it before the French conquest of 1670; that is
to say, he restored Nancy, allowing only the ramparts of the
Old Town to remain, and razing all the rest of the
fortifications without the power of restoring them; he kept
Marsal, an interior place calculated to hold Lorraine in
check, and also Sarre-Louis, a frontier-place which separated
Lorraine from the Germanic provinces; he restored Bitche and
Homburg dismantled, without power to reestablish them, and
kept Longwy in exchange for a domain of similar value in one
of the Trois-Evêchés; finally, he no longer demanded, as at
Nimeguen, four great strategic routes through Lorraine, and
consented that the passage should always be open to his
troops. The House of Lorraine was thus reestablished in its
estates after twenty-seven years of exile."
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 20, chapter 11 (volume 5).
See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697;
and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
FRANCE: A. D. 1698-1712.
The colonization of Louisiana.
Broad claims to the whole valley of the Mississippi.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
FRANCE: A. D. 1700.
Bequest of the Spanish crown to a French royal prince.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
FRANCE: A. D. 1701-1702.
Provocation of the Second Grand Alliance
and War of the Spanish Succession.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702,
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.
The Camisard rising of the French Protestant's in the
Cévennes.
"The movement known as the War of the Camisards is an episode
of the history of Protestantism in France which, though rarely
studied in detail and perhaps but partially understood, was
not devoid of significance. When it occurred, in the summer of
1702, a period of little less than 17 years had elapsed since
Louis XIV., by his edict of Fontainebleau, October, 1685,
solemnly revoked the great and fundamental law enacted by his
grandfather, Henry IV., for the protection of the adherents of
the Reformed faith, known in history as the Edict of Nantes.
During the whole of that period the Protestants had submitted,
with scarcely an attempt at armed resistance, to the
proscription of their tenets: ... The majority, unable to
escape from the land of oppression, remained at home ...
nearly all of them cherishing the confident hope that the
king's delusion would be short-lived, and that the edict under
which they and their ancestors had lived for three generations
would, before long, be restored to them with the greater part,
if not the whole, of its beneficent provisions. Meanwhile, all
the Protestant ministers having been expelled from France by
the same law that prohibited the expatriation of any of the
laity, the people of the Reformed faith found themselves
destitute of the spiritual food they craved. True, the new
legislation affected to regard that faith as dead, and
designated all the former adherents of Protestantism, without
distinction, as the 'New Converts,' 'Nouveaux Convertis.' And,
in point of fact, the great majority had so far yielded to the
terrible pressure of the violent measures brought to bear upon
them ... that they had consented to sign a promise to be
're-united' to the Roman Catholic Church, or had gone at least
once to mass. But they were still Protestants at heart. ...
Under these circumstances, feeling more than ever the need of
religious comfort, now that remorse arose for a weak betrayal
of conscientious conviction, the proscribed Protestants,
especially in the south of France, began to meet clandestinely
for divine worship in such retired places as seemed most
likely to escape the notice of their vigilant enemies. ... It
was not strange that in so exceptional a situation, a phase of
religious life and feeling equally exceptional should manifest
itself. I refer to that appearance of prophetic inspiration
which attracted to the province of Vivarais and to the
Cévennes Mountains the attention of all Europe. ...
Historically ... the influence of the prophets of the Cévennes
was an important factor in the Protestant problem of the end
of the 17th and the commencement of the 18th centuries. ...
Various methods were adopted to put an end to the prophets
with their prophecies, which were for the most part
denunciatory of Rome as Antichrist and foreshadowed the
approaching fall of the papacy. But this form of enthusiasm
had struck a deep root and it was hard to eradicate it.
Imprisonment, in convent or jail, was the most common
punishment, especially in the case of women. Not infrequently
to imprisonment was, added corporal chastisement, and the
prophets, male and female, were flogged until they might be
regarded as fully cured of their delusion. ... But no
utterances of prophets, however fervid and impassioned, would
have sufficed to occasion an uprising of the inhabitants of
the Cévennes Mountains, had it not been for the virulent
persecution to which the latter found themselves exposed at
the hands of the provincial authorities directly instigated
thereto by the clergy of the established church.
{1245}
For it must be noticed that a large part of the population of
the Cévennes was still Protestant, and made no concealment of
the fact, even though the king's ministers affected to call
them 'New Catholics,' or 'New Converts.' The region over which
the Camisard war extended with more or less violence comprised
six episcopal dioceses, which, in 1698, had an aggregate
population of about two-thirds of a million of souls. Of these
souls, though Protestantism had been dead in the eye of the
law for 13 years, fully one-fourth were still Protestant. ...
The war may be said to have begun on the 24th of July, 1702,
when the Abbé du Chayla, a noted persecutor, was killed in his
house, at Pont de Montvert, by a band of 40 or 50 of the
'Nouveaux Convertis,' whom he had driven to desperation by his
cruelty to their fellow believers. If we regard its
termination to be the submission of Jean Cavalier, the most
picturesque, in the month of May, 1704, the war lasted a
little less than two years. But, although the French
government had succeeded, rather by craft than by force, in
getting rid of the most formidable of its opponents ... it was
not until five or six years later--that is, until 1709 or
1710--that ... comparative peace was finally restored. ...
During the first months of the insurrection the exploits of
the malcontents were confined to deeds of destruction
accomplished by companies of venturesome men, who almost
everywhere eluded the pursuit of the enemy by their superior
knowledge of the intricacies of the mountain woods and paths.
The track of these companies could easily be made out; for it
was marked by the destruction of vicarages and rectories, by
the smoke of burned churches, too often by the corpses of
slain priests. The perpetrators of these acts of violence soon
won for themselves some special designations, to distinguish
them from the more passive Protestants who remained in their
homes, taking no open part in the struggle. ... About the
close of 1702, however, or the first months of 1703, a new
word was coined for the fresh emergency, and the armed
Protestants received the appellation under which they have
passed into history--the Camisards. Passing by all the strange
and fanciful derivations of the word which seem to have no
claim upon our notice, unless it be their evident absurdity,
we have no difficulty in connecting it with those nocturnal
expeditions which were styled 'Camisades'; because the
warriors who took advantage of the darkness of the night to
ride out and explore or force the enemy's entrenchments,
sometimes threw over their armor a shirt that might enable
them to recognize each other. Others will have it that, though
the name was derived from the same article of apparel--the
'camisa' or shirt--it was applied to the Cévenol bands for
another reason, namely," that when they found opportunities,
they carried off clean linen from the villages and left their
soiled garments in exchange. The final overthrow of the
Camisards "was not accomplished without the employment of
100,000 troops, certainly far more than ten times the total
number ever brought into the field by the Camisards. ... Not
less than three officers of the highest grade in the service,
marshals of France, were successively appointed to put down a
revolt which it might have been expected a simple colonel
could suffice to quell--M. de Broglie being succeeded by the
Marshal de Montrevel, the Marshal de Montrevel by the Marshal
de Villars, and the Marshal de Villars by the Marshal de
Berwick."
H. M. Baird,
The Camisard Uprising
(Papers of the American Society of Church History,
volume 2, pages 13-34).
ALSO IN:
Mrs. Bray,
The Revolt of the Protestants of the Cevennes.
N. Peyrat,
The Pastors in the Wilderness.
S. Smiles,
The Huguenots in France after the Revocation of the Edict
of Nantes, chapters 5-8.
FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession in America
(called Queen Anne's War).
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1713.
The War of the Spanish Succession in Europe.
See
ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
SPAIN: A.D. 1702, to 1707-1710;
GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1706-1711;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.
FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1715.
Renewed Jesuitical persecution of the Jansenists.
The odious Bull Unigenitus and its tyrannical enforcement.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.
A. D. 1710.
The War of the Spanish Succession: Misery of the nation.
Overtures for Peace.
Conferences at Gertruydenberg.
"France was still reduced to extreme and abject wretchedness.
Her finances were ruined. Her people were half starving.
Marlborough declared that in the villages through which he
passed in the summer of 1710, at least half the inhabitants
had perished since the beginning of the preceding winter, and
the rest looked as if they had come out of their graves. All
the old dreams of French conquests in the Spanish Netherlands,
in Italy, and in Germany were dispelled, and the French
generals were now struggling desperately and skilfully to
defend their own frontier. ... In 1710, while the Whig
ministry [in England] was still in power, but at a time when
it was manifestly tottering to its fall, Lewis had made one
more attempt to obtain peace by the most ample concessions.
The conferences were held at the Dutch fortress of
Gertruydenberg. Lewis declared himself ready to accept the
conditions exacted as preliminaries of peace in the preceding
year, with the exception of the article compelling Philip
within two months to cede the Spanish throne. He consented, in
the course of the negotiations, to grant to the Dutch nearly
all the fortresses of the French and Spanish Netherlands,
including among others Ypres, Tournay, Lille, Furnes, and even
Valenciennes, to cede Alsace to the Duke of Lorraine, to destroy
the fortifications of Dunkirk, and those on the Rhine from
Bale to Philipsburg. The main difficulty was on the question
of the Spanish succession. ... The French troops had already
been recalled from Spain, and Lewis consented to recognise the
Archduke as the sovereign, to engage to give no more
assistance to his grandchild, to place four cautionary towns
in the hands of the Dutch as a pledge for the fulfilment of
the treaty, and even to pay a subsidy to the allies for the
continuance of the war against Philip. The allies, however,
insisted that he should join with them in driving his grandson
by force of arms from Spain, and on this article the
negotiations were broken off."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 1.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
{1246}
FRANCE: A. D. 1713-1714.
Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
FRANCE: A. D. 1714.
The desertion of the Catalans.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
FRANCE: A. D. 1715.
Death of Louis XIV.
The character of his reign.
Louis XIV. died September 1, 1715, at the age of 77 years,
having reigned 72 years. "Richelieu, and after him Mazarin,
governing as if they had been dictators of a republic, had
extinguished, if I may use the expression, their personality
in the idea and service of the state. Possessing only the
exercise of authority, they both conducted themselves as
responsible agents towards the sovereign and before the
judgment of the country; while Louis XIV., combining the
exercise with the right, considered himself exempted from all
rule but that of his own will, and acknowledged no
responsibility for his actions except to his own conscience.
It was this conviction of his universal power, a conviction
genuine and sincere, excluding both scruples and remorse,
which made him upset one after the other the twofold system
founded by Henry IV., of religious liberty at home, and abroad
of a national preponderance resting upon a generous protection
of the independence of states and European civilisation. At
the personal accession of Louis XIV., more than fifty years
had passed since France had pursued the work of her policy in
Europe, impartial towards the various communions of
Christians, the different forms of governments, and the
internal revolutions of the states. Although France was
catholic and monarchical, her alliances were, in the first
place, with the Protestant states of Germany and with
republican Holland; she had even made friendly terms with
regicide England. No other interest but that of the
well-understood development of the national resources had
weight in her councils, and directed the internal action of
her government. But all was changed by Louis XIV., and special
interests, the spawn of royal personality, of the principle of
the hereditary monarchy, or that of the state religion, were
admitted, soon to fly upward in the scale. Thence resulted the
overthrow of the system of the balance of power in Europe,
which might be justly called the French system, and the
abandonment of it for dreams of an universal monarchy, revived
after the example of Charles V. and Philip II. Thence a
succession of enterprises, formed in opposition to the policy
of the country, such as the war with Holland, the factions
made with a view to the Imperial crown, the support given to
James II. and the counter-revolution in England, the
acceptance of the throne of Spain for a son of France,
preserving his rights to the Crown. These causes of
misfortune, under which the kingdom was obliged to succumb,
all issued from the circumstance applauded by the nation and
conformable to the spirit of its tendencies, which, after
royalty had attained its highest degree of power under two
ministers, delivered it unlimited into the hands of a prince
endowed with qualities at once brilliant and solid, an object
of enthusiastic affection and legitimate admiration. When the
reign, which was to crown under such auspices the ascendant
march of the French monarchy, had falsified the unbounded
hopes which its commencement had excited; when in the midst of
fruitless victories and continually increasing reverses, the
people beheld progress in all the branches of public economy
changed into distress,--the ruin of the finances, industry,
and agriculture--the exhaustion of all the resources of the
country,--the impoverishment of all classes of the nation, the
dreadful misery of the population, they were seized with a
bitter disappointment of spirit, which took the place of the
enthusiasm of their confidence and love."
A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers
État or Third Estate in France,
chapter 9.
FRANCE: A. D. 1715.
Accession of King Louis XV.
FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.
State of the kingdom at the death of Louis XIV.
The minority of Louis XV. and Regency of the Duke of Orleans.
"Louis XIV. ... left France excessively exhausted. The State
was ruined, and seemed to have no resource but bankruptcy.
This trouble seemed especially imminent in 1715, after the
war, during which the government had been obliged to borrow at
400 per cent., to create new taxes, to spend in advance the
revenue of two years, and to increase the public debt to 2,400
millions. The acquisition of two provinces (Flanders,
Franche-Comté) and a few cities (Strassburg, Landau, and
Dunkirk) was no compensation for such terrible poverty.
Succeeding generations have remembered only the numerous
victories, Europe defied, France for twenty years
preponderant, and the incomparable splendor of the court of
Versailles, with its marvels of letters and arts, which have
given to the 17th century the name of the age of Louis XIV. It
is for history to show the price which France has paid for her
king's vain attempts abroad to rule over Europe, and at home
to enslave the wills and consciences of men. ... The weight of
the authority of Louis XIV. had been crushing during his last
years. When the nation felt it lifted, it breathed more
freely; the court and the city burst into disrespectful
demonstrations of joy; the very coffin of the great king was
insulted. The new king [Louis XV., great-grandson of Louis
XIV.] was five years old. Who was to govern? Louis XIV. had
indeed left a will, but he had not deceived himself with
regard to the value of it. 'As soon as I am dead, it will be
disregarded; I know too well what became of the will of the
king, my father!' As after the death of Henry IV. and Louis
XIII. there was a moment of feudal reaction; but the decline
of the nobility may be measured by the successive weakening of
its efforts in each case. Under Mary de'Medici it was still able
to make a civil war; under Anne of Austria it produced the
Fronde; after Louis XIV. it only produced memorials. The Duke
of Saint-Simon desired that the first prince of the blood,
Philip of Orleans, to whom the will left only a shadow of
power, should demand the regency from the dukes and peers, as
heirs and representatives of the ancient grand vassals. But
the Duke of Orleans convoked Parliament in order to break down
the posthumous despotism of the old king, feigning that the
king had committed the government to his hands. The regency,
with the right to appoint the council of regency as he would,
was conferred upon him, and the command of the royal household
was taken from the Duke of Maine [one of the bastard sons of
Louis XIV.], who yielded this important prerogative only after
a violent altercation.
{1247}
As a reward for the services of his two allies, the Duke of
Orleans called the high nobility into affairs, by substituting
for the ministries six councils; in which they occupied almost
all the places, and accorded to Parliament the right of
remonstrance. But two years had hardly passed when the
ministries were re-established, and the Parliament again
condemned to silence. It was plain that neither nobility nor
Parliament were to be the heirs of the absolute monarchy. ...
Debauchery had, until then, kept within certain limits;
cynicism of manners as well as of thought was now adopted
openly. The regent set the example. There had never been seen
such frivolity of conduct nor such licentious wit as that
exhibited in the wild meetings of the roués of the Duke of
Orleans. There had been formerly but one salon in France, that
of the king; a thousand were now open to a society which, no
longer occupied with religious questions, or with war, or the
grave futilities of etiquette, felt that pleasure and change
were necessities. ... Louis XV. attained his majority February
13, 1723, being then 13 years old. This terminated the regency
of the Duke of Orleans. But the king was still to remain a
long time under tutelage; the duke, in order to retain the
power after resigning the regency, had in advance given
[Cardinal] Dubois the title of prime minister. At the death of
the wretched Dubois he took the office himself, but held it
only four months, dying of apoplexy in December, 1723."
V. Duruy,
History of France,
chapters 52 and 55.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Taylor,
Memoirs of the House of Orleans,
volume 1, chapters 11-17,
and volume 2, chapters 1-3.
F. Rocquain,
The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
chapter 1.
J. B. Perkins,
France under the Regency.
FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1719.
The Triple Alliance.
The Quadruple Alliance.
War with Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.
John Law and his Mississippi Scheme.
"When the Regent Orleans assumed the government of France, he
found its affairs in frightful confusion. The public debt was
three hundred millions; putting the debt on one side, the
expenditure was only just covered by the revenue. St. Simon
advised him to declare a national bankruptcy. De Noailles,
less scrupulous, proposed to debase the coinage. ... In such
desperate circumstances, it was no wonder that the regent was
ready to catch eagerly at any prospect of success. A remedy
was proposed to him by the famous John Law of Lauriston. This
new light of finance had gambled in, and been banished from,
half the courts of Europe; he had figured in the English 'Hue
and Cry,' as 'a very tall, black, lean man, well-shaped, above
six feet high, large pock-holes in his face, big-nosed, speaks
broad and loud.' He was a big, masterful, bullying man, one of
keen intellect as well; the hero of a hundred romantic
stories. ... He studied finance at Amsterdam, then the great
school of commerce, and offered his services and the 'system'
which he had invented, first to Godolphin, when that nobleman
was at the head of affairs in England, then to Victor Amadeus,
duke of Savoy, then to Louis XIV., who, as the story goes,
refused any credit to a heretic. He invented a new combination
at cards, which became the despair of all the croupiers in
Europe; so successful was this last invention, that he arrived
for the second time at Versailles, in the early days of the
regency, with upwards of £120,000 at his disposal, and a copy
of his 'system' in his pocket. ... There was a dash of daring
in the scheme which suited well with the regent's peculiar
turn of mind; it was gambling on a gigantic scale. ...
Besides, the scheme was plausible and to a certain point
correct. The regent, with all his faults, was too clever a man
not to recognize the genius which gleamed in Law's dark eyes.
Law showed that the trade and commerce of every country was
crippled by the want of a circulating medium; specie was not
to be had in sufficient quantities; paper, backed by the
credit of the state, was the grand secret. He adduced the
examples of Great Britain, of Genoa, and of Amsterdam to prove
the advantage of a paper currency; he proposed to institute a
bank, to be called the 'Bank of France,' and to issue notes
guaranteed by the government and secured on the crown lands,
exchangeable at sight for specie, and receivable in payment of
taxes; the bank was to be conducted in the king's name, and to
be managed by commissioners appointed by the States-General.
The scheme of Law was based on principles which are now
admitted as economical axioms; the danger lay in the enormous
extent to which it was intended to push the scheme. ... While
the bank was in the hands of Law himself, it appears to have
been managed with consummate skill; the notes bore some
proportion to the amount of available specie; they contained a
promise to pay in silver of the same standard and weight as
that which existed at the time. A large dividend was declared;
then the regent stepped in. The name of the bank was changed
to that of the Royal Bank of France, the promise to pay in
silver of a certain weight and standard was dropped, and a
promise substituted to pay 'in silver coin.' This omission, on
the part of a prince who had already resorted to the expedient
of debasing the currency, was ominous, and did much to shake
public confidence; the intelligence that in the first year of
the new bank 1,000,000,000 of livres were fabricated, was not
calculated to restore it. But these trifles were forgotten in
the mad excitement which followed. Law had long been
elaborating a scheme which is for ever associated with his
name, and beside which the Bank of France sank into
insignificance. In 1717, the year before the bank had been
adopted by the regent, the billets d'état of 500 livres each
were worth about 160 livres in the market. Law, with the
assent of the regent, proposed to establish a company which
should engross all the trade of the kingdom, and all the
revenues of the crown, should carry on the business of
merchants in every part of the world, and monopolize the
farming of the taxes and the coining of money; the stock was
to be divided into 200,000 shares of 500 livres each. The
regent nearly marred the scheme at starting by inserting a
proviso that the depreciated billets d'état were to be
received at par in payment for the new stock, on which four
per cent. was guaranteed by the State." Law's company was
formed, under the name of the Company of the West, and
obtained for the basis of its operations a monopoly of the
trade of that vast territory of France in the valley of the
Mississippi which bore the name of Louisiana. The same
monopoly had been held for five years by one Crozat, who now
resigned it because he found it unprofitable; but the fact
received little attention.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.
{1248}
"Louisiana was described as a paradise. ... Shareholders in
the company were told that they would enjoy the monopoly of
trade throughout French North America, and the produce of a
country rich in every kind of mineral wealth. Billets d'état
were restored to their nominal value; stock in the Mississippi
scheme was sold at fabulous prices; ingots of gold, which were
declared to have come from the mines of St. Barbe, were taken
with great pomp to the mint; 6,000 of the poor of Paris were
sent out as miners, and provided with tools to work in the new