THE ST. BARTHOLOMEW MASSACRE

New Zealand Tablet, 17 July 1919, Page 3

THE ST. BARTHOLOMEW MASSACRE

Paper presented to the Historical Society of St. Kieran’s . College, March, 1875, by Right Rev. Patrick F. Moran, Bishop of Ossory. ' ’ [Before publishing our next serial story we wish- to give all our readers an opportunity of studying' for themselves Cardinal Moran’s masterly paper *on the Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Bay. This tragic occurrence of a purely political nature is still described as a Catholic outrage by No-Popery writers and ranters of the uneducated type. Scholarly Protestants have long recognised that it is a mark of ignorance to attribute to the Catholic Church any complicity in the massacre. However, as it still serves bigots of the ‘‘CivisV class and newspapers like the Spectator, whether:- through their lack of ordinary historical knowledge or through their dishonesty, it is well that this exhaustive presentation, of the subject by one who was peculiarly qualified to write on it, be set before our readers. ; • If the younger generation should find it difficult and heavy, let them remember that they have only to possess’ their souls in patience for a few weeks, after which they can revel in that good old Irish novel, Willie Reilly and His Colleen Bairn .] The 24th of August, 1572, marks a rubric festival in the annals of France, for it recalls a terrible deed of vengeance executed by the Court and by an outraged nation against the Huguenots. It is also a rubric least in the calendar of those *who assail the Catholic Church in this kingdom, whilst it affords a popular theme for declaiming against her persecuting spirit, for all the crimes and horrors of that bloody - day are laid at the door of the Sovereign Pontiff, and of the Catholics of France. That no link might be wanting in the terrible accusation, the French infidels of the last century supplied an abundance of imaginary details, all of which were accepted without hesitation by the’ agents and abettors of the Protestant tradition of England. The words of Chenier were repeated in English pulpits—that the Cardinal de Lorraine had blessed the poignards of the assassins at the Louvre, and had given the signal for the massacre ; it mattered but little that that illusrious Cardinal was, at the time, far away from France, not having as yet returned from Rome, whither he had gone to take part in the Conclave for the election of Pope Gregory the Thirteenth. The words of Voltaire were also accepted as historic truth—that the clergy were the active agents of this butchery, and that the assassins immolated their unhappy victims, wielding a dagger in one hand and holding a crucifix in the other; and yet it was well known that this wicked picture rested solely on the fancy of that prince of infidels, and proceeded from his diabolical hatred against ’ the Catholic priesthood, and against the cross, the symbol of redemption. Three years ago the second centenary of this massacre was not forgotten amongst us, and then these stories were once more eagerly repeated in the pulpit and in the press, with all the earnestness that Protestant fanaticism could inspire, and with such variety as each one’s imagination could supply. The Westminster Abbey celebration merits to be specially referred to, though many would, perhaps, expect that at least the Dean of Westminster would be raised high above such prejudices: nevertheless, he availed himself of his sermon on that occasion to inform the British public that the massacre was perpetrated^-‘with-. the express approbation” of the Sovereign Pontiff. , A few years earlier, Fronde, in his History , of England' (vol. x.), had pictured in minute detail all the particulars that could be. imagined connected with that St. Bartholomew’s feast, repeating the most childish tales regarding it. Since then the very same tales have once more found a place in his pages, whilst he accused the 1 Catholics of Ireland of a premeditated massacre of l their - Protestant neighbors in the memorable year : 1641.4 i By such imaginative fwriters, the Catholics of France,- ! accused of every crime, are painted in the darkest colors, ;

• and at the' same time the harmless*Huguenots' are set before us in the light of peaceable citizens, only desirous of permission to practise the religion which they professedinnocent victims involved in sudden ruin by the fell, persecuting spirit "and treacherous intolerance of Rome. And yet why should we complain of Voltaire, or Froude, or Dean Stanley, or the many other apostles of the Protestant tradition of England, when we find Lord Acton, and writers of his school, who, though professing the. Catholic faith, yet seek to give the stamp of history to such calumnies, and to fan the flame of popular fanaticism against the Holy See, by accusing it of < guilty complicity in this dreadful massacre , t You will .not expect, however, that in this short paper I would analyse, much less refute in detail, all the calumnies that have been uttered, and "the misstatements that have been made on the subject of this St. Bartholomew's bloody festival. The task which I assume is a much simpler oneto present a brief but truthful narrative of the leading facta connected with that terrible day, and in doing so I will endeavor to arrange my remarks under the three following heads : ** - : —The principal events connected with the massacre.

Second— causes of that widespread discontent which prompted, so many persons throughout France to deeds of violence against the Huguenots. Third—ln fine, a few of the chief Questions which have arisen regarding this festival of St. Bartholomew.

I.

During the first months of the year 1572 the policy of the French King and Coixrt was wholly favorable to the Huguenots. The leaders of the party were summoned to the capital ; many of the highest offices of State were entrusted to them, and every civil or religious privilege that they contended for was readily accorded them. In a most special manner dignities and honors were conferred on the Admiral Coligny, who was their ablest champion as well in council as in the field; and, to crown all, the King, Charles IX., offered his sister in marriage to the young Prince Henry of Navarre, on whom the Huguenots had now centred all their hopes of securing for themselves one day the great prize of the diadem of France. This marriage, beingcontrary to the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Church, met with a stern and uncompromising opposition from the Holy See. Charles, however, persisted in his design, and in defiance of the most solemn repeated prohibitions, the marriage was celebrated in Paris with extraordinary pomp on August 18, 1572.*

; .Walsingham was at this time English Ambassador at the French Court. In his dispatches he gives free expression to the feelings of delight with which he witnessed this happy course of events, so,favorable to the Huguenots, who were the open friends and secret allies of England. He does not, however, merely record the favors and privileges accorded to his friends : he further attests that the King, being solely intent on enjoying the silly amusements of the Court, was wholly guided by the counsels of Coligny; and. he even ventures to express a hope that ere long they would witness "the King's revolt from Papistry." Catherine de Medici, the Queen Mother, was not one who would acquiesce without a struggle in the paramount . influence thus acquired by the Huguenot leaders. She had long been their friend and patron, but now that they would seek to undermine her power, and set aside her authority, she became at once their most determined and most unscrupulous enemy.! Charles

* White, Massacre- of St. Bartholomew, page 358. f See extracts from these dispatches in Sir James

Mackintosh's History of England, iii., 220.

t The policy pursued by Catherine whilst Queen Regent; of France, during the minority of Charles, is thus faithfully described by Hume:—"She had formed a plan of administration more subtle than judicious, and balancing the Catholics with the Huguenots, the Duke of Guise with the Prince of Conde, she endeavored to render herself necessary to both, and to establish her own dominion on their constrained obedience."—History of England, chapter xxxviii. - ,

TX-, her son, being • only: in his : tenth year ■on his accession to the throne of France, in 1560, Catherine, with the approval of the Council of State, assumed the authority, though without the title, ,of Regent and even after the King had attained his majority, she continued with supreme and undisputed power to rule the kingdom. The Guises were at ; first her only rivals, and as they were the recognised - leaders of the Catholic Party, it became to 'her a matter of supreme political interest to foster the restless followers of the reformed tenets; and though she. publicly avowed her resolve to administer justice with even balance to all the contending parties, she never failed, when an opportunity presented itself, to throw her protecting: mantle over the Huguenots, and to sustain them by all the influence which she could command. Catherine, from her childhood, had imbibed the notorious principles .of Macchiavellian policy, whih then held sway in the Court of Florence, and these were her only guide in the government: of France. It will, therefore, not surprise us to learn that for a time the project was . seriously entertained by her of adopting the reformed tenets as the national religion,* for thus it was hoped that the Catholic Party would be inexorably crushed, and that Protestant alliances would be secured for France against the growing power and encroachments of Spain. f Catherine, moreover, allowed sermons to be preached by the Huguenot ministers in the halls of the palace, and she took care that the young King would sometimes assist at these instructions.! Her daughter, Margaret of Valois, does not hesitate to write in her Memoirs that the whole Court was “infected with heresy,” , and that her brother, the Duke of Anjou, “had not escaped the unhappy influence, for he often used to throw her pVayer-book into the fire, and give her Pluguenot hymns instead.”§ Many French writers are of opinion that Catherine herself “was affected with the venom of Calvinism,”** but Mr. White, after a profound investigation as to her character and government, concludes that she had but little of any religion, and that she believed “more in witchcraft and astrology than in God.”ft The Spanish Ambassador, writing to his Court, in 1570, says that in Catherine’s Royal Council of State “five out of the eight members were atheists or Huguenots.”!! The King himself was weak and vacillating, and wholly intent on the pursuits of pleasure. He was, moreover, impulsive in his anger; and a writer whom none will accuse of partiality to the Catholic cause does not hesitate to style him “a furious madman.” §§ ■ , Now, however, that the growing influence' of Coligny awakened suspicions and alarm in the mind of Catherine, and made her fear lest she would lose v her hold of the royal power, she vowed the destruction of

* Capefigue, Histoire de France, tom. iii., chapters 38 and 41. . f Charles IX. hated Spain. In his confidential correspondence with Noailles, May 11, 1572, we read: ‘ ' ivli my thoughts are bent on opposing the grandeur of Spain, and seeing how I can most dexterously do it.” | Letter of the Nunzio Santa-Croce, November 15, 1561, inserted in Actes Eccles. civiles et Synodales, tom. i. The famous Calvinist, Duplessis-Mbrnay, says of some of his brother ministers that se' fesoient faire la presche en la chamhre de la royne mere du roy 'pendant son disner, estant aydhs a ce faire par ces femmes de chamhre, qui estoient seer element de la religion M Cantu, S tori a . Universale, vol. viii page 412. “File leitr donne a ’entendre qu’elle vent faire instruire le rot son fils .en lenr religion.”Discours Merveillenx, page xxl. 0 . § Me-moires de Marguerite de Valois, page 27, seq. ** Laboureur, vol. i., page 167. | . .ff White, Massacre, page 167. Ranke writes that Catherine “adopted the policy of the Huguenots because she had hopes that by their aid her youngest son, the Duke of Alemjon, would mount the throne of England.”—Hist, de la . : Papaute , iii., 1 83. | II Simanca’s Archives.Bouille, ii. , page 454. §§ History of the United Netherlands, by John Lothrop Motley (London, 1867), vol. i., page 43. p

the Huguenot leaders. It was rumored in Court circles that the administration of the Government would soon 1 pass into more vigorous hands, and that Coligny would rule supreme as President of the Council and CaptainGeneral .of all the forces of the kingdom. “What do you learn in your long conversations with the Admiral Coligny?” said Catherine one day to the King. “I learn,” he hastily replied, “that I have no greater enemy than my mother.”* These words sealed the doom of Coligny. V Most of the leading Huguenots had hastened to Paris' to be present at the marriage festivities of the Prince of Navarre, and they availed themselves of this opportunity to complete their political organisation, and to make an imposing display of their numbers and strength in the French capital. The public festivities, had not as yet concluded when Coligny, passing through the streets, received two gunshot wounds at the hands of an assassin, on the evening of August 22. The wounds, though dangerous; ; were not judged mortal. The public voice instinctively traced the attempt to the Queen Mother, and authentic history has fully justified that- verdict, r -In arranging the details of :the atV tempted assassination, Catherine had for her only assistants her son, the Duke of Anjou, and the Duchess of Nemours, whose first husband had been murdered by the Huguenots. . Had Coligny been slain on August 22, it is probable that no further massacre would have taken place, and Catherine, without opposition, would have at once resumed her place at - the helm of the State. Now, however, that Coligny still lived, and that their party was strengthened by the universal sympathy which the attempted assassination had awakened, the Huguenots vowed immediate vengeance against the assassins. They brandished their swords marching past the Hotel des Guise, l menacing words were even uttered against the King, and it became their common boast that the broken arm of Coligny would cost their enemies 40,000 heads. § Above all, angry words were freely used in regard to Catherine. This artful woman, having failed in this attempt to rid herself of her defiant rival, saw that not a moment was to be lost to save herself from utter ruin. On the morning of the 23rd she hastened to the King, and unfolded to him the details of a conspiracy** which the Huguenots had planned against the State, as well as against himself and the members of the Royal Family: one course alone was open to him to anticipate the traitorous designs of the conspirators, and to turn .on themselves the ruin they meditated against France. “The Huguenots won over the King (thus, writes the acute historian Ranke), and appeared to supplant Queen Catherine’s influence over him. This personal danger put an end to all delay. With that resistless and magical power which she possessed over her children, she reawakened all the slumbering fanaticism of her son. It cost her but one word to rouse the populace to arms, and that word she spoke. Every individual Huguenot of note was delivered over to the vengeance of his personal enemy.” ff

■ * White, page 374. •j-, A number of contemporary authorities will be found in two valuable articles of the Revue es Questions Historiques, published by Victor Palme, Paris, 1866, liyr. 1., page 11, and livr. 2, page 322; also in White, page 400, s€qq. t Lavallee, Histoire des Fraurals, i., page 594: Dargaud, Hisfoire de la liberie reliqicuse, iii., page 255. • a § Dispatch of the Ambassador, Giovanni .'Michieli, in La Diplomatic V eneienne, page 548 g «j ** Fronde "thus- describes /the discourse of Catherine to the King : ‘ ‘‘She? told him that at the moment that she was, speaking the Huguenots were arming. Sixteen thousand of them intended to assemble in the morning, seize 1 the palace, destroy herself, the Duke of Anjou, arid 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 i. A- » * TT.:*4 A-..;. ’A I &'iniruns? V 401 IU W JJ. . —LJL ViXV.\JJ t . tf »JJ XJ » i-i/m-iw, -x ~>. .-«r V-V • ... c, , ■**«*,«**., « Wiff Ranke, Histoire de la Papaute. yendanFle IQme f t 6?21£ 1 u- Lt u i jp i->O * V ?•:i.4T.KU ‘j stccle. , jit, 83* feseaio'ILfe - aagi ••, _____ —-(T.O- be continued,) eWiaoa wattil j