Book XXXVII, 32; Anquetil, I, 213.

[904] Collection Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 7, July 18, 1564.

[905] De Thou, IV, Book XXXVII, 32.

[906] A printed copy of this important dispatch, entitled “Coppie d’une lettre du sieur d’Aumale au sieur marquis d’Elbœuf son frère, sur l’association qu’ils delibèrent faire contre la maison de Montmorency” (February 27, 1565), is to be found in the Bib. Nat., L _b._ 33: 172. It evidently was circulated as a political pamphlet by the Huguenots. But where is the original? Portions of it are as follows: “Mon frère ... j’ay receu de vostre homme la lettre que m’avez escripte.... J’en ay par plusieurs fois cy devant escript à Messieurs de Montpensier, d’Estampes, Cehavigny: par où ils auroyent bien peu juger la volonté que j’ay tousjours lue de nous venger, et combien je desirerois l’association que vous dites (_verso_) prevoyant assez combien elle estoit necessaire non seulement pour nous, mais aussi pour tous les gens de bien à qui l’on en veult plus que jamais.

“Et pour ceste cause, mon frere, je trouverais merveilleusement bon que les dicts Sieurs y voulsissent entendre, laissant les villes, d’autant qu’il n’y a nulle asseurance en peuple, comme je l’ay dernièrement encore cogneut. Mais avec la Noblesse, de ma part je suis tout resolu et prest, et n’y veux espargner aucune chose, et le plustost sera le meilleur. Qui me fait vous prier, de regarder et en bien adviser tous parensemble, et mesmes avec le seigneur de Montpensier, et de m’en mander ce que vous aurez deliberé, à fin que par là je resolue avec les Seigneurs et Noblesse qui sont de deça et mes Gouverneurs, qui feront tout ce que je vouldray.

“Au demeurant, vous avez bien entendu le nombre de Chevaliers de l’Ordre qui ont esté faicts, qui sont bien pres de trente ou plus, dont monsieur de Brion en est des premiers. Aussi des preparatifs que lon fuit à la Court pour aller à Bayonne recevoir festoyer la Roine d’Espaigne.”

[907] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 80-86. I have used the seventeenth-century translation of Cotton, 274, 275, which preserves something of the spirit of the original. De Thou, never having seen the document in question, expresses his doubt of Montluc’s veracity in the matter, and argues the improbability of the King’s having followed Montluc’s advice on the ground that the crown had condemned all secret associations as destructive of domestic tranquillity. “Why should the King make a league with his subjects?” asks De Thou. “Far from deriving any advantage from it, would it not diminish his authority? Would the King not incite his subjects to do exactly what he wanted to avoid, and by his own example accustom them to town factions; to foment and support parties in the kingdom?”—De Thou, IV, Book XXXVII, 33. Unfortunately for the truth of De Thou’s hypothesis, the facts are the other way, for there is documentary proof that Charles IX followed out Montluc’s suggestion, and sent the declaration to all his officers requesting their adherence to it. The baron de Ruble discovered the proof in F. Fr. 20,461, fol. 58. See his edition of Montluc, III, 86, note; cf. D’Aubigné, II, 218, and n. 6.

[908] The credit of having made this important discovery is due to the baron de Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 317-26, 329, 330, 346, 347, 362, 363. But it was Forneron who showed the world the magnitude of Montluc’s treason (_Hist. de Philippe II_, I, 293-330). Suspicion of Montluc’s course, however, prevailed in his own day. He was charged with having agreed to deliver over the province of Guyenne to Philip II in 1570 and issued a cartel against his adversaries denying that he had any intelligence with Spain. See Appendix VIII.

[909] D’Andelot’s appointment to this post created intense feeling among the Catholic officers. Strozzi, Brissac, and Charry openly refused to obey him (D’Aubigné, II, 207; Brantôme, V, 341).

[910] Forneron, I, 294, n. 3.

[911] Montluc, ed. De Ruble, IV, Introd., ix.

[912] It will be observed that Montluc independently had come to the same conclusion as Granvella.

[913] Montluc, ed. De Ruble, IV, 317-26, February 8, 1564.

[914] Forneron, I, 330. D’Aubigné, II, 294, wrongly ascribes this plot to the Jesuits. The traditional Protestant account, attributed to Calignon, chancellor of Navarre, is printed in _Mém. du duc de Nevers_, II, 579; also in _Mém. de Villeroy_. The account in _Arch. cur._, VI, 281, is much colored. Catholic historians have denied the existence of such a plot, e. g., the abbé Garnier in _Mém. de l’Acad. des inscrip._ (1787), Vol. L, 722. But since the publication of Montluc’s _Correspondance_ there is no doubt of it.

[915] Forneron, I, 303-6. Cabie, _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 483, gives the text of the ambassador’s letter to Catherine, and his note of thanks to the queen’s embroiderer who divulged the plot.

[916] D’Aubigné, II, 204, 205; _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 669. Charles IX’s letter of November 30, 1563, to St. Sulpice gives some details of the process (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 186, 187).

[917] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 119, 120. Her letter to her daughter in Spain, not in the correspondence, which M. Cabie cites in _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 208, displays real courage. Charles IX said he could not abandon Jeanne d’Albret “sans être vu déserter de ses plus proches parents” (_ibid._, 247). The instructions to Lansac, who was sent to Spain to protest in the name of France against the papal action, show fine scorn (_ibid._, 224).

[918] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 327, note.

[919] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 228: “Réponse de Philippe II au sr. de Lansac en sa première audience, 18 fev. 1565.”

[920] _Ibid._, 247.

[921] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 5.

[922] Letter to St. Sulpice, February 10, 1563, _ibid._, 115.

[923] _Ibid._, 135.

[924] Pius IV was so perplexed that he tried to avoid pronouncing in the matter. “On avait décidé, à la dernière fête de St. Pierre, de supprimer cette cérémonie, afin de n’offenser personne.”—Charles IX to St. Sulpice, July 24, 1563, _ibid._, 141.

[925] Du Ferrier, French ambassador at Venice to St. Sulpice, April 12, 1564, _ibid._, 252.

[926] Cf. the report of the conversation between Archbishop Cispontin, the papal secretary, and D’Oysel (_ibid._, 273, July, 1564).

[927] “Instructions données par Charles IX à L’Aubespine le jeune, envoyé en Espagne,” _ibid._, 277, June 24, 1564.

[928] _Ibid._, 279, 281, 282, 299. “It is an error to regard, as most historians do, the course of the relations of Philip II to the see of Rome as a single consistent development, for the earlier part of his reign was dominated by a principle utterly different from that which inspired the latter. In the sixties and early seventies the Spanish king devoted himself primarily to the maintenance of the principles of the counter-Reformation; he abandoned political advantage in the interest of the faith, united with the ancient foes of his house for the suppression of heresy, dedicated himself and his people to the cause of Catholicism.... But in the later seventies there came a change. The spirit of the counter-Reformation was waning in France: the old political lines of cleavage had begun to reappear; Philip began to discover that he was draining his land to the dregs in the interests of a foreign power who offered him no reciprocal advantages, and reluctantly exchanged his earlier attitude of abject devotion to the interests of the church for the more patriotic one of solicitude for the welfare of Spain.... Viewed from the Spanish standpoint, the story of this long development is a tragic but familiar one—reckless national sacrifice for the sake of an antiquated ideal, exhaustion in the interests of a foreign power, which uses and casts aside but never reciprocates. But it adds one more to the already long list of favorable revisions of the older and more hostile verdicts on the Spanish monarch. Philip’s attitude toward the papacy, though not always wise or statesmanlike, was at least far more honorable and loyal to the church than it is usually represented (as, for instance, by Philippson): the first part of his reign is marked by his single-hearted devotion to the cause of Rome, and even at the last that devotion does not falter, though the interests of his country forced him to adopt a more national policy toward the papacy than that with which he had begun.”—R. B. Merriman, Review of Herre, _Papsttum und Papstwahl im Zeitalter Philipps II_ (Leipzig, 1907), in _American Historical Review_, October, 1908, pp. 117, 118.

[929] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 177, July 30, 1564; _R. Q. H._, 1869, p. 403.

[930] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 669.

[931] Granvella said as much to Philip II, July 14, 1563. See _Papiers d’état du card. de Granvelle_, VII, 124; cf. Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 277 (Philip II to Alva, December 14, 1563).

[932] Granvella to Perez, August 6, 1563, _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 177.

[933] _Ibid._, 231.

[934] _Ibid._, 262.

[935] See Paillard, _Histoire des troubles de Valenciennes_, 1560-67.

[936] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 270.

[937] For proof see _ibid._, 55, 56, and note.

[938] “Les Huguenots de France sollicitent continuellement ceulx des Pays-Bas pour se révolter,” writes Granvella to the Emperor on June 3, 1564 (_ibid._, 18).

[939] _Ibid._, 99; cf. 104, note.

[940] _Ibid._, 23, 393; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 5, 275, 280, 284, 300, 305; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 197_s_.

[941] “Si cela de la religion succède bien en France, les affaires vauldront de mieulx.”—_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 152, July 15, 1564.

[942] The presence of many Belgian students at the French universities undoubtedly contributed to this sympathy. See Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 372.

[943] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 390, 527, 550, 556, 593.

[944] _Ibid._, VII, 281.

[945] The counselor d’Assonleville wrote to Cardinal Granvella after the peace of Troyes, “Adieu, Callais! combien qu’elle nous duiroit bien hors de mains des François!”—Poulet, I, 570.

[946] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 191, 194, 209, 221. Each state appointed a commission in 1563 to adjust this difficulty and other border complications on the edge of Artois and Luxembourg (for instances, see _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 224, 227, 228, 240, 254), whose conferences were prolonged through the years 1564-65. See the long note in Gachard, _Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 270.

In Collection Godefroy, XCIV, No. 16, will be found a “sommaire de la négociation de Calais, entre le président Séguier et le conseiller du Faur, députés de Charles IX, et les ambassadeurs de Philippe II;” original, signed by Séguier and Du Faur. In the same collection, XCVI, No. 6, is a delimitation treaty pertaining to the Picard frontier, signed by Harlay and Du Drac, at Gravelines, December 29, 1565. Charles IX refused to ratify it.

[947] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 18.

[948] “Un eslavon tan importante desta cadena.”—_Ibid._, VII, 215.

[949] For Granvella’s opinion of the demand for the Estates-General, see his letter to Philip II, April 18, 1564 (_ibid._, 492-94).

[950] _Ibid._, 294, note, and especially 495-97; cf. _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 188, 193.

[951] “Non admettre à couleur de la peste.”—Granvella to the duchess of Parma, _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 411.

[952] This was a mere threat, however, as such a course would have injured France as much as the Netherlands.

[953] See the letter of the president Viglius to Granvella, April 17, 1564, in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 476; cf. 481. On this whole question, so far as England is concerned see Brugmans, _England en de Nederland in de eerste Jaren von Elizabeth’s regeering (1558-67)_, Groningen, 1892; cf. _English Historical Review_, VIII, 358-60.

[954] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 496, 497. Cf. the observation of Assonleville in a letter to Granvella, Poulet, I, 570. The cardinal’s prophecy was partially fulfilled (_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 40, 41).

[955] “Qui est autant que couper la gorge aux marchands.”—“Mémoire envoyé pour le roi de France à St. Sulpice,” January, 1564, in _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 210.

[956] See “Note du Ministère de France en réponse aux griefs presentés par l’ambassadeur d’Espagne” in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 584-86. Other references to this commercial matter are in VII, 62, 164, 375, 411, 476, 481, 495-97, 584, 668; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 175, 181, 188, 191, 193, 194, 200, 206, 209, 210, 213, 217, 221, 224, 304, 350, 351; _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 6-15, 514, 515; Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 244, 246, 247; Poulet, I, 567, and n. 2. There is a memoir on the mission of Assonleville to England, April-June 6, 1563, in the _Bulletin de la commission royale d’histoire_, sér. III, I, 456 ff.

Undoubtedly Spain’s harsh commercial policy toward France was also influenced in part by jealousy of the commercial relations of France and England, for the treaty of Troyes established freedom of trade between the two nations. For the great importance of this treaty in the history of commerce see De Ruble, _Le traité de Cateau-Cambrésis_, 193-95.

[957] St. Sulpice sent this important information in a letter of January 22, 1565 (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 338).

[958] _Ibid._, 366. Catherine de Medici pushed her insistence perilously far, asserting that Alava, the Spanish ambassador in France, had intimated that objection would not be made to the presence of the prince of Condé, since his exclusion might endanger the peace. Philip II promptly declared that if Alava had made Catherine believe so, he had acted in violation of instructions. “Mémoire envoyé à Catherine sur les réponses du roi catholique,” May 7, 1564, in _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 375.

[959] Egmont passed through Bordeaux on his way to Spain while the court was there (_R. Q. H._, XXIV, 479).

[960] The reasons for the selection of Bayonne are set forth in _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 472.

[961] “Les lenteurs ... qui sont habituelles en Espagne.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 363.

[962] F. Fr. 20,647, fol. 11. For other details of the preliminaries of Bayonne, see _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 335-38, 347, 350, 351, 353, 354, 357-60, 362, 363, 366, 374-78, 382.

[963] Cf. _Recueil des choses notables qui ont esté faites à Bayonne Paris_, 1566; and the _Mémoires de Marguerite de Navarre_, Book I.

[964] See De Thou, Book XXVII; Mathieu, _Histoire de France_, I, 283; La Popelinière, Book XI, 8. The prince of Orange and William of Hesse both believed that the massacre of St. Bartholomew was concerted at Bayonne (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 507; IV, 108).

[965] Some of the literature upon this famous interview is as follows: E. Marcks, _Die Zusammenkunft von Bayonne: Das französ. Staatsleben u. Spanien in d. J. 1563-67_, Strassburg, 1889; Combes, _L’entrevue de Bayonne de 1565_, Paris, 1882; Maury, in _Journal des savants_, 1871; Loiseleur _La St. Barthelémy_, Paris, 1883; Lettenhove, _La conférence de Bayonne_, 1883; La Ferrière, _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 457, and the same in _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd.; Philippson, _L’Athénæum belge_, July 1, 1882; De Croze, _Les Guises, les Valois et Philippe II_; Boutaric, _La Saint Barthélemy, d’après les archives du Vatican_ (_Bib. de l’Ecole des Chartes_, sér. V, III, 1); Raumer, _Frankreich und die Bartholomäusnacht_, Leipzig, 1854; Wuttke, _Zur Vorgeschichte der Bartholomäusnacht_; Soldan, _La Saint Barthélemy_ (French trans.), 1854.

[966] _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 483, and n. 2.

[967] For Alva’s judgment on the government of France see _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 276; cf. _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 341-43.

[968] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 523; _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 492-512, n. 4. Alva frankly said that he wished the constable were gone with the rest—“el condestable que valierá mas que faltára como los otros.”—_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 277.

[969] The duke of Montpensier was a notoriously bigoted Catholic. The Venetian ambassador said of him: “Il quale è tenuto più atto a governare un monasterio di frati che a comandare ad eserciti.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 155.

[970] _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 485. Montluc put a memoir in Alva’s hands which proposed an alliance between the crowns of France and Spain for the purpose of crushing the Protestants in France. In event of the French king’s refusal to become a party to this alliance, Montluc outlined the means of defense which Philip II would have to resort to. This memoir is published by the baron de Ruble in _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 23 ff. In this striking document the veteran soldier, after setting forth his favorite thesis that French Calvinism was antimonarchical in its nature, makes a survey of the religious state of the provinces. He concludes that while Protestantism was rampant everywhere in France, in five-sixths of the country the Catholics were superior. The place of great danger is Guyenne. The mutual safety of France and Spain requires the subjugation of this province. France cannot or will not do this alone (cf. _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 342, n. 3; 343, n. 4). It remains, therefore, for the king of Spain to do so. This is the historical argument for all of Montluc’s subsequent course of treason with Philip II.

[971] This has been triumphantly proved by Count Hector de la Ferrière, who has shown that M. Combes, _L’Entrevue de Bayonne de 1565 et la question de St. Barthélemy d’après les archives de Simancas_, Paris, 1881, has mistranslated the very documents upon which he relied (_R. Q. H._, _XXXIV_, 511 ff.).

[972] Pius V was elected pope January 17, 1566 (see Hilliger, _Die Wahl Pius V zum Päpste_, 1907). He had been grand inquisitor before his elevation, and imparted a ferocious zeal to the holy office (see Bertelotti, _Martiri di Libero Pensero e Vittime della Sta. Inquisizione nei Secoli, XVI, XVII, e XVIII_, Rome, 1892). The violence of his character and his bigotry led to his committing several acts injurious to the Catholic cause, but it was due to him that the Spanish, Venetian, and papal fleets defeated the Turks at Lepanto. He wrote on March 28, 1569 to Catherine de Medici: “Si Votre Majesté continue, comme elle a fait constamment, dans la rectitude de son âme? et dans la simplicité de son cœur, à ne chercher que l’honneur de Dieu toutpuissent, et à combattre ouvertement et ardemment les ennemis de la religion catholique, _jusqu’à ce qu’ils soient tous massacrés_ (ad internecionem usque), qu’elle soit assurée que le secours divin ne lui manquera jamais, et que Dieu lui préparera, ainsi qu’au roi, son fils, de plus grandes victoires: ce n’est que par _l’extermination entière_ des hérétiques (deletis omnibus haeritics) que le roi pourra rendre à ce noble royaume l’ancien culte de la religion catholique.”—Potter, _Pie V_, 35; letter of the Pope to Catherine de Medici, March 28, 1569. The original Latin version of this letter, the salient words of which are in parentheses above, is in _Epistola SS. Pii V_, ed. Gouban, III, 154, Antwerp, 1640. The editor was secretary to the marquis de Castel-Rodrigio, ambassador of Philip IV to the Holy See. An abridged edition was published by Potter, _Lettres de St. Pie V sur les affaires religieuses de son temps en France_, Paris, 1826. The letter is one of congratulation written to Catherine de Medici upon the Catholic victory of Jarnac and the death of the prince of Condé. (Cf. the letter of April 13, 1569, on p. 156 to the same effect.) Nevertheless, even the Pope regarded the total destruction of the French Protestants as a result more devoutly to be wished for than practicable. Pope Pius V, however, was not the first advocate of destruction, for as early as 1556 François Lepicart gave the same advice to Henry II: “Le roy devroit pour un temps contrefaire le luthérien parmi eux [the Protestants], afin que, prenant de là occasion de s’assembler hautement partout, on pût faire main-basse sur eux tous, et en purger une bonne fois le royaume.”—_Bayle’s Dictionary_, art. “Rose.”

The doctrine of assassination for heresy originally proceeded from the mediaeval church, in which it can be traced back as far as the beginning of the Crusades. Urban II asserted that it was not murder to kill an excommunicated person, provided it was done from religious zeal. (“Non enim eos homicidas arbitramur quod adversus excommunicatos zelo catholicae matris ardentes, eorum quoslibet trucidasse contigerit.”—Migne, _Epistolae Urbani_, CLI, No. 122; Mansi, XX, 713; the same words are used by Ivo of Chartres, X, 331, and by Gratian in the _Decretum_ [causa 32, quaestio 2, canon: _De neptis_].) The passage stands in the revised edition, to which Gregory XIII prefixed the injunction that nothing should be omitted, and the gloss gives the following paraphrase: “Non putamus eos esse homicidas qui zelo justitiae eos occiderunt.”

In 1208 Innocent III proscribed the count of Toulouse (Teulet, _Trésor des Chartes_, I, 316), and in the same pontificate the Fourth Lateran Council declared that the Pope might depose anyone who neglected the duty of exterminating heresy and might bestow his state on others (Harduin, _Concilia_, VII, 19). The same canon reappears in the _Decreta_ of Gregory IX (Lib. iv, tit. 7. cap. 13). St. Thomas Aquinas declared that the loss of political rights was incurred by excommunication (_Summa_ [ed. 1853], III, 51). The teaching that faith need not be kept with a heretic was well established by the church in the thirteenth century. It was pleaded by the Emperor in the case of Huss—“quoniam non est frangere fidem ei qui Deo fidem frangit.”—Palacky, _Documenta Joannis Hussi_, I, 540.

The spirit of this teaching survived in the sixteenth century. In 1561 some citizens of Lucca, having embraced the Protestant belief, were obliged to flee from the city. The government of the republic, under suggestion from Rome, passed a law on January 9, 1562, that whoever killed one of these refugees, though he had been outlawed, yet would his outlawry be reversed; and that if he himself needed not this privilege, it could be transferred to another (_Archivio storico italiano_, X, app. 176, 177). On January 20, Pope Pius IV wrote to congratulate the city on this pious legislation: “Legimus pia laudabiliaque decretaque civitatis istius Generale Consilium nuper fecit ad civitatem ipsam ab omni heresum labe integram conservandam.... Nec vero quicquam fieri potuisse judicamus, vel ad tuendum Dei honorem sanctius, vel ad conservandam vestre patrie salutem prudentius.”—_Ibid._, 178, 179.

When Henry of Valois made oath to respect liberty of conscience in Poland he was informed that it would be sin to observe the oath, but that if he broke it, the sin of making it would be regarded as a venial offense: “Minor fuit offensio, ubi mens ea praestandi quae pelebatur, defuit.”—Hosii, _Opera_, II, 367.

The Ridolfi plot, it may be added, casts a very clear light upon the teaching and conduct of Pius V.

[I owe some of the information given above to a curious accident. In 1899, among a number of books which I purchased in London, I found a number of fragmentary notes dealing with this question. There is nothing to indicate their authorship, but in recognition of the assistance of some scholar to me unknown this acknowledgment is made. It may be added that the books purchased dealt with France in the fourteenth century].

[973] This was Montluc’s idea, which he broached both to the cardinal of Lorraine and Philip II, in the form of an edict which he himself improvised, and which we know that the king of Spain actually read (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 359-62). There are two Spanish translations of the first document in the Archives nationales. Philip indorsed the letter to Bardaxi in his own handwriting: “la carta para el cardinal de Lorena.”—_Ibid._, IV, 362, note.

[974] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 306; Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 368; letter of Margaret of Parma to Antonio Perez, September 27, 1565.

[975] The monotony of life and the tyranny of Spanish etiquette must have borne hard upon the little queen of Spain. But in the midst of the miseries of this “royal slavery,” as M. le comte de la Ferrière calls it, it was a crowning humiliation to be condemned to be the instrument of Philip’s political intrigues. That her young spirit rebelled, though hopelessly, against the situationis evident, from a pitiful letter written by her to her brother’s ambassador in Spain (La Ferrière, _Rapport_, 28).

[976] On Cardinal Pacheco see Poulet, I, 7, note and Index.

[977] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., lxxxiii, lxxxiv.

[978] The key to it was discovered in 1885. Suriano had been Venetian envoy at Trent. He was not the regular ambassador of the senate in France and his dispatches seem to have been in another key from that of Marc Antonio Barbaro the accredited ambassador.

[979] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., lxxxv.

[980] Combes, 47.

[981] “For a whole fortnight Catherine resisted the pressure of her daughter and the Spanish envoys, who found support in the drastic proposals of the leaders of the French Catholics. Within the last three days of the interview, however, concessions were made which satisfied Alva and his master, though Granvella and Alva exhibited some skepticism. The queen was prompted, ... not by Alva’s alleged threat that the King must lose his crown, or his brother Henry his head, but merely by her fear that the total failure of the interview would hinder the attainment of her ends. These concessions consisted in the engagement to accept the decrees of the Council of Trent and in an enigmatical promise of punishment or remedial measures. The latter, however, probably did not refer to the judicial murder or assassination of the Huguenot leaders—a scheme suggested by Montpensier’s confessor and welcomed by Alva—but to the expulsion of the ministers and subsequent enforcement of orthodoxy. The execution of these measures was postponed until the conclusion of the journey, but it seems probable that Catherine never seriously intended an act which would have been the inevitable sign of civil war.”—Armstrong in _English Historical Review_, VI, 578, 579 (review of Marcks, _Die Zusammenkunft von Bayonne_, Strasburg, 1889).

[982] For example La Noue, chap. xii (1567).

[983] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 509, 510; _R. Q. H._, XXXIV.

[984] “Tous les bruis que l’on fayst courer ne sont pas vray.... Et y a tent de noblèse au demeurant que tou les souir à la sale du bal je panserès aystre à Baionne si j’y voyais reine ma fille,” writes Catherine to the duke of Guise (_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 315).

[985] Fourquevaux, I, 6, November 3, 1565. Cf. _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 326—Catherine to Fourquevaux, November 28, 1565.

[986] For the beginnings of Catherine’s negotiations in Poland see _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., cv, 404; Capefigue, 412 ff.

[987] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 320.

[988] “C’est la rareté et la cherté des vivres qui nous chasse,” said Catherine to the Venetian ambassador (cited by La Ferrière, _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., cii).

[989] See the rhyme upon it in L’Estoile, ed. Michaud, series 2, Vol. I, p. 17.

[990] Cf. Babinet de Rencogne, “Sur un débordement de la Charente et la cherté des vivres en 1481,” _Bull. de la Soc. art._, etc., 1860, 3^[e] sér., II, 3 (Angoulême, 1862).

[991] Cf. Boutiot. “Notes sur les inondations de la rivière de Seine à Troyes depuis les temps les plus reculès jusqu’ à nos jours,” _Annuaire admin. pour 1864_ (Troyes), p. 17.

[992] Claude Haton, I, 395-98. This statement, even if there were no other evidence, is confirmed for the south of France by the court’s experience in the foothills of the Pyrenees in January, 1565 (cf. _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 465). For the west of France see _Chroniques Fontenaisiennes_ (Paris, 1841), 84, 85, and the “Journal de Louvet,” published in the _Revue d’Anjou_ in 1854. One quotation may suffice: “Au mois de febvrier, il tomba sy grande quantité de neige au païs d’Anjou et fust l’hyver si froid, que les rivières furent glacées et qu’on marchoit et passont par-dessus, et que tous les lauriers et romarins gelèrent, et qu’au dégel les eaux crurent et furent si grandes qu’elles rompirent des arches, ponts et chaussées, et fust ceste année appelée l’année du grand hyver.” I know of no article upon this subject as a whole. M. Joubert, _Etude sur les misères de l’Anjou aux XV^[e] et XVI^[e] siècles_, 1886, pp. 35 and 161, has a little to say. The subject deserves treatment. The sources of course are almost wholly local.

[993] Claude Haton, I, 331.

[994] _Idem_, I, 409.

[995] Catherine’s order to the marshal Montmorency, as governor of Paris, dated November 19, 1565, is in _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 325.

[996] The authorities of Provins made requisition of the grain possessed by private persons and appropriated all save that which was necessary for the owners, which was sold to the townspeople at the maximum price of 20 sous per _boisseau_. The abbot of St. Jacques and the prior of St. Ayoul baked bread to be distributed to the poor. One of the wealthy citizens from Easter till harvest made daily distribution of bread to more than three hundred poor, besides furnishing them with work (Claude Haton, I, 409).

The _boisseau_ (Med. Latin, _boissellus_ [Du Cange, _s. v._]) was an ancient measure of capacity equivalent to 13.01 litres, approximately 12 quarts. In remote parts of France the term is still sometimes used to indicate a décalitre. The _boisseau_ was used for both dry and liquid measure. On the other hand the _bichet_ (Med. Latin, _bisselus_ and _busellus_, whence the English bushel) was a dry measure, representing from one-fifth to two-fifths of a hectolitre (from 4.4 to 8.8 gallons) according to the province. The _setier_, was a larger dry measure of 6 pecks (Paris measure). The _muid_ (Latin _modius_) also was of variable capacity. That of Paris equaled 36 gallons. The _queue du creu_ was a large wooden cask, about equivalent to a hogshead and a half, and was used only for wine. The calculations of terms of American money are on the theory that the _livre tournois_ in 1565 was equivalent to 3.11 francs, according to the estimate of the vicomte d’Avenel in _Revue des deux mondes_, June 15, 1892, p. 795.

[997] Claude Haton, I, 418. For information on this subject see Reuss, _La sorcellerie au 16^[e] et au 17 siècle, particulièrement en Alsace d’après des documents en partie inédits_; Jarrin, _La sorcellerie en Bresse et en Bugey_ (Bourges, 1877); Pfister, “Nicolas Rémy et la sorcellerie en Lorraine à la fin du XVI^[e] siècle,” _Revue hist._, XCVII, 225.

[998] “Molins è città, ed à posta vicina all’ Alier, sopra il quale ha un ponte; è la principale del ducato di Borbon. Vi è un bellissimo palazzo, fabbricato già dai duchi di Borbon, posto in fortezza, con bellissimi giardini e boschi e fontane, e ogni delicatezze conveniente a principe. Tra le altre cose vi è una parte dove vi si teniano de infinite sorte animali e ucelli, delli quali buona parte è andata de male; pur vi restano ancora molti francollini, molte galline d’India, molte starne, è altre simil cose; è vi son molti papagalli vi diverse sorte.”—_Rel. vén._, I, 32, 34.

[999] When the court was at Blois so great was the number of strangers that the Knights of the Order made a house-to-house canvass.

[1000] _C. S. P. For._, _anno_ 1565, p. 524; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 523. For details upon the history of the six months between July and January, see _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, lxxxvii-cv.

[1001] _C. S. P. For._, _anno_ 1566, No. 17. Before the end of the month the old scores were officially “shelved” by decrees of the King in council (January 29 and 31, 1566). Many of the sources allude to this hypocritical reconciliation: De Thou, V, Book XXIX, 184; Poulet I, 125—letter of Granvella from Rome; D’Aubigné, II, 223-25; _C. S. P. For._, No. 57, January 29, 1566; Castelnau, Book VI, chap. ii.

[1002] _C. S. P. For._, No. 41, January 23, 1566.

[1003] _C. S. P. For._, No. 120, February 22, 1566.

[1004] _Ibid._, No. 150, March 6, 1566.

[1005] _Ibid._, No. 136, February 25, 1566. “The constable lies at Chantilly ill at ease.”—_Ibid._, No. 406, May 21, 1566. Poulet, I, 190, Morillon to Granvella, March 5.

[1006] _C. S. P. For._, _anno_ 1566, Introd. The text of the _ordonnance_ is in Isambert, XIV, 189; De Thou, Book XXXIX, 178-84, has much upon it. It is he who records the speeches of the King and the chancellor. It is interesting to observe that very similar conditions prevailed in Germany at this time. See the account of the Diet of Spires (1570) in Janssen, _History of the German People_, VIII, 75 ff.

[1007] Cf. Cheruel, _Histoire de l’administration monarchique de la France_, I, 196-203; Glasson, _Histoire du droit et des institutions de la France_, VIII, 170 ff.

[1008] The clergy of Guyenne were so incensed at this prohibition that they threatened to leave the country (_Archives de la Gironde_, XIII, 183).

[1009] See the case of the magnificence of the house of a Parisian shoemaker, who had purchased the estate of a king’s treasurer and enormously enriched himself with gold and silver. Under a pretext the queen mother secured entrance to the house. Claude Haton, I, 412, gives a detailed description of its magnificence.

According to an estimate of January 15, 1572, the income from the “Parties Casuelles,” that is to say, from offices vacated by the death of particular possessors thereof, and from the “Paulette,” was two million francs and yet the corruption in the administration was so great that the King received but a quarter of this amount (Cheruel, I, 208).

[1010] De Thou, V, Book XXXVII, 185; D’Aubigné, II, 224; _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 343, 344, 347, 387, April 28; May 3-4, 16, 1566; Forneron, _Hist. des ducs de Guise_, II, 59.

[1011] “On ne sait encore quant on délogera d’icy, combien que les laboureurs des champs ayent ja faict présenter deux requestes au Roy pour se retirer et sa suite à Paris jusques à ce que la récolte soit faict.”—Tronchon to M. de Cordes, July 4, 1567; quoted by the duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de Condé_, I, Appendix XVI.

[1012] “Politique de bascule,” _R. Q. H._, XXVII, 274.

[1013] _C. S. P. For._, No. 275, April 12, 1566.

[1014] It was estimated that, beside footmen, captains, men-at-arms, there were 20,000 horsemen attached to the various factions (_C. S. P. For._, No. 470, May-June, 1566).

[1015] _C. S. P. For._, No. 667, August 21, 1566.

[1016] _Ibid._, No. 715, September 14, 1566.

[1017] Hugh Fitzwilliam to Cecil: “The constable is of great authority with the king and the queen mother; and being mortal enemy to the house of Guise is with his nephews and the Protestants for his life.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 741, October 3, 1566.

[1018] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 515. “A man might easily perceive by the sour countenance the queen made that she liked not all that he had said. After he had saluted divers persons the king made him somewhat too short an answer for so long a demand.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 444, June 1, 1566.

[1019] “The king has made peace with his treasurers for a certain sum by the constable’s means, whereof something cleaves to his fingers.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 733, §2, September 28, 1566.

[1020] According to the estimate of this syndicate France had a population of from fifteen to sixteen millions (_Rel. vén._, III, 149).

[1021] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,111-15, April 18-19, 1567.

[1022] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 594, 595; Poulet, I, Introd., l-lii, n. 2; Gachard, _Don Carlos et Philippe II_, I, 303; _C. S. P. For._, No. 641, August 13, 1566. Coussemaker, _Les troubles religieux du XVI^[e] siècle dans la Flandre maritime 1560-70_; Van Velthoven, _Documents pour servir à l’hist. des troubles religieux du XVI^[e] siècle dans le Brabant_; Verly, _La furie espagnole, 1565-95_; Kervyn de Lettenhove, _Les Huguenots et les Gueux: Etude hist. sur vingt-cinq annels du XVI^[e] siècle (1560-1585)_, Bruges, 1883-85, 6 vols.; Poulet, _Correspondance du cardinal de Granvelle_, I, Introd., lvii-lxxvi; II, Introd., iv-vii; De Thou, V, 204-37; D’Aubigné, Book IV, chap. xxi.

[1023] The most notable of these was Francis Junius, who was driven out of Antwerp. The Spanish ambassador demanded his arrest but the prévôt de l’hôtel refused, alleging with right that Junius was the ambassador of the count palatine and entitled to immunity (_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., cviii).

[1024] On this famous siege of Malta see D’Aubigné, Book IV, chap. xix; De Thou, Book XXXVIII. It was begun on May 17, 1565.

Mingled with this fear was apprehension lest even the Turk might become an ally of the Flemings and the Protestant French (Poulet, I, 357, Morillon to Granvelle). That it was not an utterly fantastic notion of him alone, see the letter of Margaret of Parma to Philip II, in _Corresp. de Philippe II_, I, No. 411, and Gachard, _Corresp. de Guillaume le Taciturne_, VI, 408.

[1025] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, I, 259-89; Poulet, I, 207; Gachard, _La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, I, 88. “Avec la liberté des consciences, que aulcungs prétendent, nous ne nous trouverions pas mal si, suyvant l’exemple des François, nous tumbions aux mesmes inconvenientz.”—Letter of Granvella, April 9, 1566, in Poulet, I, 209.

[1026] Sir Francis Berty to Cecil: “The Prince of Orange since Wednesday shows himself openly to take the Gueux part, and divers of his men wear their badge. This town is marvellously desolated; great riches are conveyed out, chiefly by strangers.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 582, July 20, 1566, from Antwerp.

[1027] Poulet, I, 307.

[1028] We know of Montigny’s treason from a dispatch of Granvella to Philip II, July 18, 1565, in which the cardinal tells the King that Montigny is still successfully pretending to be a Calvinist and is in correspondence with the Châtillons and Montmorency. He had already been at least nine months in the pay of Spain. He got 20 écus per diem for one job (_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 404, 595). Montigny came to Paris ostensibly to attend the wedding of the duke of Nemours’ son to the admiral’s niece at Easter time. We get a line on Philip II’s methods at this point, for the Guises themselves were having secret and treasonable dealings with Spain, yet did not know of Montigny’s relation to Philip II and treated him with scorn and contempt (_ibid._; Poulet, I, 329; cf. Finot, _L’espionnage militaire dans les Pays-Bas entre la France et l’Espagne aux XVI^[e] et XVII^[e] siècles_).

[1029] Poulet, I, 304; Edward Cook to Cecil: “Montgomery has told him that the French Protestants are resolved to succour those of Flanders.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 661, August 18, 1566. This letter is analyzed in the _Bull. de la comm. roy. d’histoire_, 3^[e] sér., I, 129. Granvella’s confidant in Brussels, the prevost Morillon, wrote with truth on July 7: “Je croy que si avons mal cest année ce ne sera du costel de France.”—Poulet, I, 350. Cf. Reiffenberg, _Corresp. de Marguerite de Parme_, 88; Gachard, _Corresp. de Philippe II_, I, 429, 431, 436; at p. 473 is a letter dated October 15 in Italian from the duchess of Parma to Philip expressing fear of Huguenot projects.

[1030] Louis of Nassau without doubt was in close connection with the leading French Protestants. See _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, I, 229; II, 196, 403. It was extremely difficult to repress the ardor of the Protestants at Valenciennes, owing to its nearness of the French border and the number of Calvinist preachers whom the Huguenots sent into the country in June, 1566 (_ibid._, II, 135). For the influx of Calvinist preachers into the country as early as 1561 see Languet, _Epist. secr._, II, 155. The prince of Condé was reputed to have sold a tapestry for 9,000 florins, which he gave to the cause there (Poulet, I, 439).

[1031] Montluc to Bardaxi, October 27, 1564: _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 368.

[1032] Poulet, I, 64; Reiffenberg, 91; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, II, 175, 178.

[1033] _Corresp. de Philippe II_, I, 433.

[1034] The government of Charles IX even winked at the secret levies made by the prince of Condé for the benefit of Louis of Nassau, from behind the mask of an official repudiation of the complicity of any French in Flanders, denying that the prince of Condé was ever in Antwerp in disguise (Poulet, I, 521, 3; Gachard, _La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, II, 206). The last assertion, of course, was true. On July 24 a royal proclamation was issued at Alva’s instance, forbidding French subjects to go into the Low Countries “pour négotiation ou autrement.”—Poulet, I, 364; Gachard, _op. cit._, II, 27.

[1035] “Hinc illae lachrymae et ille metus,” wrote the provost to Granvella (Poulet, I, 405). It was the wish of the Emperor that the King of Spain would go in person and without an army to the Low Countries in order to pacify it by kindness and not by force (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, II, 505; Raumer, I, 173, December, 1566). But Philip II could not make up his mind to come in person to the Netherlands, although advised to do so by all. For years he continued to entertain the thought and continually put it off. See a letter of the Duchess of Parma to Duke Henry of Brunswick upon the coming of the duke of Alva, January 1567, in _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 21 ff.

[1036] On April 3, 1565, St. Sulpice sent word to Charles IX that Philip II had sent Menendez to Florida “avec une bonne flotte et 600 hommes pour combattre _les Français et les passer au fil de l’épée_.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 364. When Fourquevaux succeeded him the French government had not yet learned of the massacre. St. Sulpice’s fragmentary information is to be found at pp. 400, 401, 404, 414. The abortive efforts of France to secure redress are spread at length in _Corresp. de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 209, 330, 337, 338, 341, 342, 360; and in Fourquevaux, I, Nos. 4-7, 9, 15, 21, 28, 43, 47, 55, 66. The editor’s account in the Introd., xv-xxi is admirable. In the _Correspondencia española_, II, 126-28, is to be found Philip II’s letter to Chantonnay, February 28, 1566, in reply to the ambassador’s letter of advice about Coligny’s enterprise. The blood of French colonists who had been massacred in Florida cried out for vengeance, and from the hour of its knowledge the subject of reprisal was a matter of common talk in the Norman ports (_C.S.P. Dom._, Add., XIII, 227). On September 24, 1566, Sir Amyas Paulet, the English ambassador informed his government that he had information that a squadron was about to sail for this purpose, although it was “late for so long a voyage” (_ibid._, 31). On the whole history of this ill-fated colony see Gaillard, “La reprise de la Floride faite par le capit. Gourgues (1568),” _Notices et extr. des manuscr. de la Biblioth. Nat._, IV, and VII (1799); Gourgues, _La reprise de la Floride_, publiée avec les variantes, sur les MSS de la Bibl. Nat. par Ph. Tamizey de Larroque, 1867; Gafferel, _Histoire de la Floride française_, 1875; Parkman, _The French in North America_. The newest literature upon the subject is Woodbury Lowery, “Jean Ribaut and Queen Elizabeth,” _American Historical Review_, April, 1904, and the same author’s _The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the United States: Florida, 1562-74_ (New York, 1905).

[1037] De Thou, V, 37-40.

[1038] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 381, note. In 1558 Bolwiller made an inroad into France (_Bulletin des comités historiques_, 1850, p. 774; a summary of a letter concerning this episode to be found in the archives of Basel). On Bolwiller see _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 36, note. The new plan was occasioned by the issue of letters-patent of Charles IX on October 9, 1564, forbidding sale or alienation of any regalian rights of the Three Bishoprics without his consent (text in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 394).

[1039] Bolwiller to Granvella, October 16, 1564, on the written authority of Philip II (_ibid._, VIII, 429).

[1040] “Je tiens que les François, par voye de faict, y (Toul) mectront la main, comme ilz ont jà commencé, et le mesmes à Metz et Verdung.”—_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 465; Granvella to the Emperor, April 12, 1564.

[1041] _Ibid._, VIII, 504-6.

[1042] _Ibid._, IX, 44. Granvella to Perez, February 26, 1565; p. 111, Philip II to Chantonnay, then stationed at Vienna, April 2, 1565. Bolwiller intrusted the action to Egelolf, seigneur de Ribeauspierre (the German form is Rapolstein), a noble of Upper Alsace. His mother was a Fürstenburg. (See _ibid._, IX, 24, note.) Strange vicissitude, that a descendant of that house in the next century should have been Louis XIV’s right-hand agent in his seizures on the Rhine through the Chambers of Réunion, playing an identically opposite part from that of his ancestors.

[1043] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 71—Bolwiller to the cardinal March 20, 1565.

Metz was early famous for its interest in the Reformation. The laxness of the episcopal discipline in the first part of the sixteenth century contributed to the growth of this spirit, and finally led to a Catholic reaction. The city was more inclined, however, to Calvinism than to Lutheranism. Charles V prohibited the exercise of the Lutheran faith, but nevertheless, the Protestants of Metz made an alliance with the Smalkald League. Under the French domination the city passed definitely from Lutheranism to Calvinism. The French governor, Vieilleville, was a moderate in policy and granted the Huguenots a church in the interior of the town. During the first civil war the Protestants in Metz remained tranquil, but soon afterward Farel visited the city for the third time, and thereafter the city’s religious activity was considerable. The cardinal of Lorraine suppressed Protestant preaching in the diocese and closed the church. When Charles IX visited Metz in 1564 the edifice was destroyed and Protestant worship was forbidden. After the death of the Marshal Vieilleville, the count de Retz was made governor. One of the motives of the support of the Huguenot cause by John Casimir, the prince palatine, was a promise made by the Huguenots that he would be given the governorship of Metz. On the subject as a whole see Thirion, _Etude sur l’histoire du protestantisme à Metz et dans le pays Messin_, Nancy, 1885; Le Coullon, _Journal (1537-87) d’après le manuscrit original_, publié pour la première fois et annoté par E. de Bouteiller, Paris, Dumoulin, 1881.

[1044] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 462, 463.

[1045] Granvella to Perez, October 15, 1565; _ibid._, IX, 594, 595.

[1046] See Philip II’s letter to Chantonnay, October 22, 1565; _ibid._, IX 609 ff.

[1047] He had served in Italy in 1555 and became the cardinal’s bailiff and revenue-collector in the bishopric of Metz after the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis (_Commentaire et lettres de Montluc_, I, 228).

[1048] For an account of the “Cardinal’s War” see De Thou, V, Book XXXVII, 37-40. There is another account in the _Mém. de Condé_, V, 27, supposed to have been written by Salzedo himself. In F. Fr. 3, 197, folio 92, there is an unpublished letter of Salzedo’s (see Appendix IX), and another of the duke of Aumale upon this incident. Chantonnay comforted Philip for the disappointment over Metz by telling him, that while the restoration of the Three Bishoprics was indeed important, because of their bearing upon the situation in Flanders, the trouble had averted a marriage alliance between France and Austria which would have been more calamitous (Letter to Philip II, October 30, 1565, in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 625).

Two years later we find the tricky cardinal of Lorraine still protesting his innocence to Catherine and praying her not to be suspicious of him (Letter of December 6, 1567, Fillon Collection, No. 316).

[1049] Forneron, I, 346, on the basis of Alva’s letter to Philip on May 19, 1566, and the cardinal’s own letter, written at the same time (both preserved in K. 1,505, No. 99, and K. 1,509), assumes that the secret intercourse between Philip II and the Guises began in the year 1566 and ascribes the immediate occasion of it to the troubles in the Low Countries. He missed the inception of it by a year. Granvella’s letter conclusively shows that it began in July, 1565. Every word of this letter is of weight. It is to be found in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 399-402.

[1050] Johnson, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_, 328. For interesting details by an eye-witness, see Bourgon, _Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham_, II, 121 ff.

[1051] Poulet, I, 509; Gachard, _Don Carlos et Philippe II_, 354; _La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, II, 213. The disastrous news reached the King on September 5. For ten days he was ill with a high fever in consequence. Fourquevaux, writing from Segovia on September 11, to Charles IX, gives some details of Philip’s illness and how he was treated by the physicians and then adds: “Les Espagnols sont bien marriez d’entendre que les Lutheriens dud. pais (Flanders) ont commencé s’empoigner aux eglises et reliques, et à fere marier les prebtres et nonnains, avec infiniz autres maulx qu’ilz font, qui est le semblable commencement des doleurs qui advindrent en votre Royaume du temps des troubles.”—_Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_, I, 124, 125.

[1052] The Austrian lands were invaded by the Turks in the autumn of 1566 (_Négociations dans le Levant_, II, 721; Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 15).

[1053] It was a pose of Philip’s that the expedition was purely political; cf. Gachard, _Les bibliothèques de Madrid et de l’Escurial_, 94 ff., based on the correspondence of the archbishop of Rossano.

[1054] Dispatch to Charles IX, December 9, 1566 (Fourquevaux, I, 147-52). He waited in great anxiety for instructions from Paris, daily growing more suspicious because the Spanish King said not a word to him on the subject, although he sent for him in audience on January 14, 1567 (_ibid._, 167-72; dispatches of Jan. 5 and 18, 1567). The tremendous financial operations of the Spanish government (consult Gachard, _Don Carlos et Philippe II_, II, 369, 370) filled him with alarm, and he made an unsuccessful effort to bribe the secretary of one of Philip II’s ministers. He gathered that the Spanish forces would likely sail for Barcelona and disembark at Nice or Genoa (_ibid._, 176, 177, February 13, 1567).

[1055] Forneron, I, 347, on authority of Alva’s dispatch in K. 1,507, No. 2; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 527.

[1056] Gachard, _La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, II, 228. The dispatch was delayed on account of the illness of the courier and the heavy snows he encountered in the Pyrenees, and did not reach the ambassador until January 15, 1567 (Fourquevaux, I, 168). The correspondence of Bernardo d’Aspremont, viscount of Orthez, governor of Bayonne—unfortunately much scattered in the volumes of the Bibliothèque Nationale—shows the standing danger the southern provinces of France were in from Spanish invasion (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 400, note).

[1057] Poulet, II, 183.

[1058] D’Aubigné, II, 229, note.

[1059] Poulet, II, 495.

[1060] D’Aubigné, II, 228; Zurlauben, _Hist. milit. des Suisses_, IV, 335.

[1061] We learn this from a letter of George Paulet. See Appendix X.

[1062] Poulet, II, 183; _Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_, I, 173.

[1063] _Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_, I, 174, February 4, 1567. Philip II took these military preparations of the French with remarkable equanimity—even Charles IX’s positive refusal to allow the Spanish army to traverse France (March 24, 1567). He seemed to be sincerely anxious to avoid friction with France (see his letter to Granvella, February 17, 1567, in Poulet, II, 255, 256). The danger in the Low Countries was too great to allow any outside controversy. The clandestine operation of Protestant preachers in Spain itself and the smuggling of heretical books into the land, concealed in casks of wine, disquieted him more than France did at this season. (For information on this head see Poulet, II, 126, 142, 199; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 506; Weiss, _Spanish Protestants in the Sixteenth Century_.)

[1064] Fourquevaux (February 15, 1567), I, 180, 181. Granvella apparently, immediately after learning of the image breaking, and anticipating that either the King himself or the duke of Alva, would have to go to Brussels, sent a remarkable memoir to Philip II, in which he discusses all the various routes by which he might go, and the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. The physical difficulties of governing the Low Countries from Madrid are very evident (see Poulet, I, 469-80).

[1065] The Pope’s nuncio had pointed out to Philip II what a splendid achievement the overcoming of Geneva would be for Christendom. The scheme was an old one. See a letter of Pius IV to Francis II, June 14, 1560, in Raynaldus, XXXIV, 64, col. 2. The King, after some weeks of consideration, declared that he could not think of it; that even the duke of Savoy was against the project. (See Gachard, _Corresp. de Philippe II_, II, 552, and his _Les bibliothèques de Madrid et de l’Escurial_, 100.) On the political ambition of the duke of Savoy see _Rel. vén._, I, 453. He had made a treaty with Bern in 1565 (Collection Godefroy, XCIV, fol. 21). There are three excellent German monographs on Switzerland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Planta, _Die Geschichte von Graubunden in ihren Hauptzügen_, Bern, 1892; _idem_, _Chronik der Familie von Planta_, Zurich, 1892; Salis-Soglio, _Die Familie von Salis_, Lincau-im-B., 1891. For a review of the last two see _English Historical Review_, VIII, 588.

[1066] See _Revue d’histoire diplomatique_, XIV (1900), 45-47.

[1067] “Mais le faisant, c’estoit remectre le feu et le glaive dans la France plus et plus cruel qu’ilz n’y ont esté.”—_Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_ (March 15, 1567), I, 189.

[1068] I have given the figures of Mendoza, which probably is the strength of the forces when they arrived. The official roster is in the _Correspondencia_, No. CXXII.

[1069] “The front of every company by a new invention was flanked with fifteen supernumeraries, armed with musketoones, and rests wherein they laid the barrow that could not be managed by the hands. For before his time, such huge muskets as unmanageable were drawn upon carriages and only used at sieges, from whence being transmitted into the field, and those that carry them mixed with the lesser musketeers, they have been found extraordinarily serviceable in battle.”—Stapylton’s transl. of Strada, Book VI, 31.

Brantôme’s statement is more graphic: “Il fut luy le premier qui leur donna en main les gros mousquetz, et que l’on veid les premiers en guerre et parmy les compagnies; et n’en avions point veu encores parmy leurs bandes, lors que nous allasmes pour le secours de Malte; dont despuis nous en avons pris l’usage parmy nos bandes, mais avec de grandes difficultéz à y accoustumer nos soldats comme j’en parle au livre des couronnelz. Et ces mousquetz estonnzarent fort les Flamans, quand ilz les sentirent sonner à leurs oreilles; car ilz n’en avoient veu non plus que nous: et ceux qui les portoient les nommoit-on Mousquetaires; très bien appoinctéz et respectéz, jusques à avoir de grands et forts gojatz qui les leur portoient, et avoient quatre ducats de paye; et ne leur portoient qu’en cheminant par pays: mais quand ce venoit en une faction, ou marchans en battaille, ou entrans en garde ou en quelque ville, les prenoient. Et eussiez dict que c’estoient des princes, tant ils estoient rogues et marchoient arrogamment et de belle grace: et lors de quelque combat ou escarmouche, vous eussiez ouy crier ces mots par grand respect: _Salgan, salgan los mosqueteros! Afuera, afuera, adelante los mosqueteros!_ Soudain on leur faisoit place; et estoient respectéz, voire plus que capitaines pour lors, à cause de la nouveauté, ainsy que toute nouveauté plaist.”—Brantôme, _Vies des Grands Capitaines_: “Le Grand Duc d’Albe.”

[1070] Mendoza, _Comentarios_, II, chaps. i-iii. There is a French translation of this work by Loumier (Soc. de l’histoire de Belge), 2 vols., 1860.

[1071] “The duke arrived in the Low Countries offending none in his passage nor being himself offended by any one, though the French appeared in arms upon the marches of Burgundy and Colonel Tavannes by command from the French king with 4,000 foot and some troops were defence of course of the borders, ‘costed’ the Spanish army. Indeed I do not think that ever army marched so far and kept stricter rules of discipline, so that from Italy even to the Low Countries, not only no towns but not any cottage was forced or injured.”—Strada, VI, 31.

The only instance of plundering seems to have been in the case of the property of the prince of Orange in Burgundy (_C. S. P. For._, 1562, August 7, 1567). This discipline is all the more remarkable, considering the fact that there were fifteen hundred women with the army. “Lon a sceu le passaige du duc d’Albe et de sa trouppe; quon dict estre de six mille espaignolz et quinze cens femmes.”—Guyon to M. de Gordes, July 11, 1567. Cited by the duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de Condé_, I, Appendix XVI.

[1072] Poulet, II, 183, December 25, 1566.

[1073] Morillon to Granvella, April 7, 1566: “Pas ce boult veult l’on gaigner le magistrat des villes et le peuple: que ne sera si facille comme l’on pense.”—Poulet, I, 203. The following is explicit: “Et dict encores plus que, s’il se fust joinct à la première lighe des seigneurs, la religion fust bien avant venue, car de là, dict-il, ‘tanquam ex fonte emanasse has undas,’ et que le Roy le doibt entendri ainse et y pourveoir avant toutte euvre, puisque de celle là est née la seconde de la religion.”—Poulet, II, 75. Cf. 118: “la première lighe et la secunde engendrée d’icelle.”—Granvella to Viglius, November 23, 1566. As late as May 9, 1567, it is called “la gentille ligue” (Poulet, II, 434). Granvella, in a letter to Philip in 1563, attributed the formation of the association to Count Hoorne (_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 12). Noircarmes, who was better informed, makes Brederode the moving spirit of it (Poulet, II, 613, 614).

The Gueux even had a branch organization, though one historically different in origin, in Franche Comté, in the Confrérie de Ste. Barbe. The seigneurs of the house of Rye enjoyed high civil and ecclesiastical station in both Burgundies in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Marc and Claude François of Rye, father and son, were rivals and political enemies of the Perrenots—the family of Granvella and Chantonnay—and regarded them as upstarts. The Confrérie de Ste. Barbe was organized by them in Franche Comté on lines similar to the Gueux and had dealings with the latter—the members even wearing their emblem. Cardinal Granvella accused the seigneurs of Rye of aiming to establish Protestantism, in Franche Comté from Flanders. This probably was true but in a less degree. Protestant agitation was a means to an end, not an end in itself, it seems to me. If otherwise, such a _catholic_ title for the association is very singular. On the Confrérie de Ste. Barbe consult Poulet, I, 29; II, 44, 141. I am somewhat inclined to think that Tavanne’s Confraternity of the Holy Spirit in ducal Burgundy may not impossibly have been influenced by the Confrérie de Ste. Barbe in the adjoining county of Burgundy, for Tavannes had a long political conflict with the Parlement of Dôle in Franche-Comté (see Collection Godefroy, CCLVII, Nos. 22, 23), and was familiar with things there.

[1074] Poulet, I, 223.

[1075] _Ibid._, II, 269. This revised form of the Gueux in which Calvinism is interjected is often alluded to as the “second league” in the letters which pass between Granvella and the provost Morillon, e. g., _ibid._, 280, 437, 600.

[1076] Poulet, II, 42.

[1077] For some examples see _ibid._, 183.

[1078] This organization seems to have been perfected by February, 1567. Poulet, II, 244, has a brief note on this matter. For an extended article see _Bulletin historique et littéraire de la société de l’hist. du protestantisme Français_, March, 1879. Cf. Gachard, _Corresp. de Guill. le Taciturne_, II, cx, cxi, and notes. Marnix was treasurer-general of the confederation (Poulet, II, 262, n. 1).

[1079] Poulet, II, 335, 336, 396. “Sine qua factum nihil,” wrote the provost, whose conception of government was Draconian in simplicity, to his confidential friend (_ibid._, 353).

[1080] _Ibid._, 469 and 508.

[1081] _Ibid._, 396, 438.

[1082] See Gachard, _Corresp. de Philippe II_, 461, 471, 473; Poulet, I, 461, 521; II, 102, 106, 139, 143, 187, 394, 440, 451, 659, 675.

[1083] Morillon to Granvella, August 31, 1567, in Poulet, II, 605: “La première chose que l’on doibt faire sera de munir et asseurer les frontières et renvoier chascun à son gouvernement, d’aultant que les François semblent voulloir esmouvoir, du moingz les Hugonaux.” The cardinal had advised the duke of Alva to do this in the May preceding, when he was at Genoa on his way northward (Poulet, II, 448, 454).

Montluc’s repeated warnings to Philip II, in the course of their secret correspondence, of the succor French Calvinists were giving to his Flemish rebels (K. 1,506, Nos. 46-48) led the King to enlarge the system of espionage which he maintained in France. The movements of the admiral, the prince of Condé, and other leaders, were carefully reported (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 75, note). On the whole practice see Forneron, I, chap. xi.

[1084] Mundt to Cecil from Strasburg, July 8, 1567 (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,418).

[1085] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, Introd., v.

[1086] Fourquevaux (July 17, 1567), I, 237. St. Sulpice had held similar language in 1564: “Le meilleur moyen pour le prince d’avoir la paix est d’être toujours en état de repousser ses voisins.”—_L’Ambassade de. St. Sulpice_, 269.

[1087] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,402, July 6, 1567. Sir Henry Norris writes to Cecil on March 25, 1567: “A better time than this could not be found to demand Calais, they being in such distrust of their own force, wherefore it might be understood that some preparation of arms was making in England.”—_Ibid._, No. 1,048. A year earlier than this Cecil had been advised to make common cause with the Emperor, the one to recover the Three Bishoprics, the other Calais (_ibid._, No. 326, April 29, 1566; cf. _ibid._, _Ven._, 394, July 3, 1567). There is a brief account of the negotiations in _Bulletins de la Comm. royale d’histoire_, séries IV, Vol. V, 386 ff. Cf. _C. S. P. For._ (1587), Nos. 1039, 1044, 1046, 1083.

[1088] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, Introd., iii; _C. S. P. Ven._, Nos. 389, May 16, 1567.

[1089] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, Introd., iv.

[1090] “The prince of Condé wrote to the queen mother against the king’s revoking the edict of pacification, who assured him on the faith of a princess that as long as she might prevail, she should never break it, and if he came to court, he would be as welcome as his heart could devise, and as for the _Swiss_ they were _to defend the frontiers_ in case the Spanish forces should attempt to surprise any peace.”—Norris to Queen Elizabeth, August 29, 1567, _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,644. Catherine de Medici ordered the dispersal of the Huguenot bands on the Picard border in 1567 (_R. Q. H._, January, 1899, p. 21).

[1091] The words are from a letter of Sir Henry Norris to the earl of Leicester in _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,537, July 21, 1567, and sound like a paraphrase of the admiral’s language. The implication is that Coligny’s withdrawal had some connection with the purported stealing of Alava’s cipher in the May before. See _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,230, May 24, 1567. But according to Fourquevaux, I, 227, the Spanish ambassador accused Catherine de Medici of the stealing, _not_ Coligny. If this be true, then Coligny must have wanted to find a pretext for leaving the court without arousing the suspicion or animosity of the King, as might have been the case if he had done so openly out of sympathy for the prince of Condé. Claude Haton, I, 406, says that Coligny was piqued because Strozzi was given the command of the new forces instead of himself. The prince of Condé retired to Valéry, Coligny to Châtillon. D’Andelot soon afterward followed suit, resigning his post as colonel-general of infantry on the ground that the marshal Cossé refused to obey his orders, and retired to Tanlay near Tonnerre. The fine château is still standing.

Thenceforward it was of interest to the prince to stir up doubt and distrust among the Huguenots by misrepresenting the true reasons for the crown’s military preparation (_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, Introd., vi; _C. S. P. For._, _anno_ 1567, p. 305).

[1092] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,629, August 23, 1567.

[1093] Claude Haton, I, 405.

[1094] _C. S. P. Ven._, July 12, 1567.

[1095] La Popelinière, XI, 36, 37.

[1096] See Rosseeuw-Saint-Hilaire, “Le duc d’Albe en Flandre. Procès des comtes d’Egmont et de Hornes (1567-1568),” _Séances et travaux de l’Acad. des sc. moral et polit._, 4^[e] sér., XVI (LXVI^[e] de la collect.), 1863, p. 480.

[1097] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,155, May 1, 1567.

[1098] D’Aubigné, I, Book IV, chap. vii.

[1099] This château was a gift to the prince of Condé by the widow of marshal St. André, who was infatuated with him. After the prince’s second marriage she wedded Geoffrey de Caumont (Claude Haton, I, 363). See also Clément-Simon, _La Maréchale de Saint-André et ses filles_, Paris, 1896.

[1100] The rendezvous was at Rosay-en-Brie (La Popelinière, Book XII, 37; D’Aubigné, IV, chap, vii; Claude Haton, I, 424, 425).

[1101] The Venetian ambassador Correro, in his relation of the conspiracy, expresses astonishment that the secret of the Huguenot leaders did not leak out, and attributes the fact to the perfection of the Protestant organization (quoted by La Ferrière in _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, ix). It seems to me that this feature was less due to perfect organization than to the promptitude with which Condé and Coligny endeavored to carry out the project. The lesson of the conspiracy of Amboise seven years before could not have been lost upon them. Moreover, the queen mother did have some intimation, notwithstanding her surprise when the shock came. For on September 10, while the court was staying at Monceaux, some armed bands of horsemen were seen hovering around, which caused the King’s hasty removal to Meaux (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,683, September 13, 1567, Norris to Leicester). From that hour Catherine was on the alert, though she refused to attach alarmist importance to the signs she had seen until her eyes were opened.

[1102] Claude Haton, I, 434.

[1103] Zurlauben, _Hist. milit. des Suisses_, IV, 351; Laugel, “Les régimens suisses au service de France pendant les guerres, de religion,” _Revue des deux mondes_, November 15, 1880, pp. 332 ff. Pfiffer had served in France during the first civil war and was made a colonel after the battle of Dreux. There is a life of him in German by Segesser, _Ludwig Pfyffer und seine Zeit_, Bern, 1880. Other versions of this incident are in D’Aubigné, II, 230-32; Claude Haton, I, 428, 429; Castelnau, VI, chap. iv; De Thou, Book XLII; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 530. La Popelinière, XII, 38, 39, gives a good account of the behavior of the Swiss. The duke of Bouillon, an eye-witness of these incidents, has left a striking account in his _Mémoires_, ed. Petitot, 75.

[1104] For Charles IX’s own version of the affair of Meaux see a letter of the King to the baron de Gordes, begun at Meaux and finished at Paris, September 28, 1567, in Duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de Condé_, I, Appendix XXII. His letter to Montluc of the same date is in _Archives de la Gironde_, X, 437.

[1105] _Rel. vén._, II, 187.

[1106] The Guises made capital out of the event of Meaux and sedulously exploited the King’s animosity. Martin, _Histoire de France_, IX, 216, suggests that Charles IX’s conduct on St. Bartholomew’s Day may have been influenced by this episode.

[1107] _Rel. vén._, II, 112, 113.

[1108] “Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France Received and Enacted by Their First National Synod at Paris in 1559,” chap. vii, canon 1, published in Quick, _Synodicon in Gallia_, 2 vols., London, 1692.

The first consistorial regulation which we possess has been published by the Protestant pastor, Eugene Arnaud, from a manuscript at Grenoble. It bears the title “Articles Polytiques par l’Eglise Réformée selon le S. Evangile, fait à Poitiers 1557.” See _Synode général de Poitiers 1557_, _Synodes provinciaux de Lyon, Die, Peyraud, Montelimar et Nîmes en 1561 et 1562_, _assemblée des Etats du Dauphiné en 1563_, _etc._, par E. Arnaud. Grenoble, ed. Allier, 1872, 91 pages.

At the synod of Lyons (1563) the canons of the three preceding national synods held at Paris, Poitiers, and Orleans, were reduced to a single series of articles. The deliberations of most of the provincial synods still remain in manuscript or are lost (Frossard, _Etude historique et bibliographique sur la discipline ecclésiastique des églises réformées de France_, 18).

[1109] Chap. vi, canon 1.

[1110] Chap. viii, canon 2. Chap. v, canon 1, provides that “a consistory shall be made up of those who govern it (the individual churches), to-wit, of its pastors and elders.” In some cases deacons discharged the elder’s office (chap. v, canon 2).

[1111] Chap. viii, canon 8. Elders were elected by the joint suffrage of pastor and people, upon oral nomination (chap. iii, canon 1).

[1112] Chap. viii, canon 9.

[1113] Chap. viii, canon 14.

[1114] Chap. viii, canon 15.

[1115] The synod of Nîmes in 1572 also divided Normandy into two provinces (_Synodicon in Gallia_, I, 111, 112). At the same time Metz was annexed to Champagne.

[1116] _Rel. vén._, II, 115, and n. B; _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, II, Book V, 338; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 107; _Mémoires de Philippi_, 360, col. 1 (ed. Buchon); Collection Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 46; Claude Haton, I, 425.

[1117] The democratic revolutionary character of the Huguenot movement in Guyenne probably owes some of its intensity to the memory of the revolt of 1548 and the merciless suppression thereof (observation of M. Henri Hauser, _Rev. hist._, XCVII (March-April, 1908), 341, n. 6, a review of Courteault _Blaise de Montluc_).

[1118] “Temevano prima i cattolici, non perchè fossero inferiori di numero (che ... del popolo minuto non vi è la trigesima parte ugonotta; la nobilita è più infetta; e s’io dicessi di un terzo, forse non fallirei); ma perchè questi; sebben pochi, erano però uniti, concordi, e vigilantissimi nelle loro cose.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 120.

The Huguenots fired guns instead of ringing bells as a signal of alarm (_ibid._, 107). The _tocsin_, even before St. Bartholomew, was the Catholic signal.

[1119] _Rel. vén._, II, 115.

[1120] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 552; Ranke, _Civil Wars and Monarchy in France_, 287; Forneron, _Les ducs de Guise_, II, 221; Anquetil, _Histoire des assemblées politiques des réformes de France_, I, 18.

[1121] Forneron, II, 164 ff.; _Hist. de Languedoc_, V, 543, 544; Armstrong, “The Political Theories of the Huguenots,” _English Historical Review_, IV, 13; Merriam, _History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau_, 13-15; Beaudrillart, _Jean Bodin et son temps_.

[1122] “Si le roy tenoit sa loy, le royaulme en seroit mieulx régy et gouverné, les antiens, qui ont tenu les concilles, ont bien regardé à cella quant ilz ont uny nostre foy avec la continuation de la monarchie des princes, car ilz ont bien poysé que le peuple, qui est gouverné sous ung monarque, est beaucoup plus assuré et tenu en la craincté de Dieu et à l’obéyssance qu’il doibt porter à son roy, que non celluy qui est soubz une républicque, en laquelle sa loy admene tout le monde et destruict les monarchies. Qui me voldra nyer que le roy prent ceste loy qu’il ne faille que sa personne mesmes et son royaulme soit régy et gouverné par les gens qui auront esté esleuz par les estatz, qui sera son conseil sans lequel le roy ne pourra faire chose aucune. Et s’il veult une chose et le conseil une aultre, le pays ne fera sinon ce que le conseil ordonnera, parce qu’il aura esté (esleu) par les estatz; et si le roy mesmes veult quelque chose pour luy ou pour aultre, fauldra que, le bonnet à la main, il le viegne demander à son conseil et les prier, là où en nostre loy il commende au conseil et à tous, tant que nous sommes. Que l’on regarde dès ceste genre ce que se faict en Angleterre et en Escosse, et si ce n’est plustost manière d’aristocracie ou de démocracie que non de monarchie. Et quand le roy sera grand, il voldra demander sa liberté, laquelle ne luy sera concédée et s’il faict semblant de la voloir avoir par force, son conseil mesmes luy couppera la guorge et feront un aultre roy à leur plaisir.”—_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 297, 298 (December 1563). The baron de Ruble, in a note remarks: “Nulle part peut-être, pas même dans les écrits de François Hotman et de Bodin, les réformes politiques que promettait le calvinisme ne sont exposées avec autant de clarté que dans ce mémoire de Monluc.”

[1123] Paulet to Cecil, October 13, 1567; _C. S. P. Dom._, Add.

[1124] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 549. On September 29, 1567, permission was given the populace of Paris to arm themselves.—Lettres patentes du Roy Charles IX pour l’establissement des capitaines de la ville de Paris et permission aux citizens d’icelle de prendre les armes. Felibien, _Histoire de Paris_, III, 703, 704.

[1125] La Popelinière, XII, 39; Claude Haton, I, 439; La Noue, chap. xiv; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,427, September 30, 1567. Norris gives the names of the towns taken by the prince of Condé’s forces.—_State Papers, Foreign_, Elizabeth, Vol. XCIV No. 1,338. See Appendix XI. According to Baschet, _La diplomatie vénitienne_, 543 and note, the prince of Condé planned to burn Paris.

[1126] La Popelinière, Book XII, 51, 51 _bis_. The slaughter at the bridge was terrible. The King’s captain and the color-bearer, who managed to escape to Paris, were hanged by Charles IX.—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,804, November 2, 1567.

[1127] _Ibid._, No. 1,763, October 14, 1567.

[1128] Claude Haton, I, 444-46.

[1129] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 407, October 18, 1567.

[1130] Claude Haton, I, 439-45, and La Noue, chap. xvi, give some graphic details.

[1131] Claude Haton, I, 444, 445.

[1132] “Ordonnance du Roy, portant permission à toutes personnes, d’apporter, et faire apporter, conduire et amener à Paris, tant par eau que par terre, toutes espèces de vivres, bleds, vins et autres; sans payer pour iceux aucunes daces, subsides, ou imposition quelconques.”—Paris, R. Estienne, 1567.

[1133] “Lettre addressée aux échevins de Rouen par un de leurs délégués,” _Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de Normandie_, 1875-80, p. 279. The whole letter is of interest.

[1134] Alva’s reply October 24, 1567, is in _Correspondance de Philippe II_, II, 594. Cf. Gachard, _La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, I, 395; II, 459; and _Histoire des troubles des Pays-Bas_, ed. Piot, I, 293 (chap. xlvi).

[1135] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,789, October 27, 1567.

[1136] These demands were presented in writing to the queen’s emissaries. De Thou, Book XLII; Claude Haton, I, 447; D’Aubigné, II, 232-34, have summarized them. La Popelinière, Book XII, 41-43 gives the text. There is a monograph by Baguenault de Puchesse: _Jean de Morvillier, évêque d’Orléans: Etude sur la politique française au XVI^[e] siècle, d’après des documents inédits_, Didier, Paris, 1870.

[1137] La Popelinière, Book XII, 50 _bis_; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,856, October 10, 1567.

[1138] Davila, I, 195.

[1139] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,777, October 22, 1567.

[1140] A list of officers and the number of horsemen commanded by each who were sent to the king of France by the duke of Savoy.—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,735, September, 1567.

[1141] He wrote to Philip II, to Emanuel Philibert of Savoy, and the Venetian government urging them to succor Charles IX “against the rebels and heretics” within his kingdom, and to the duke of Lorraine to stop the reiters.—Potter, _Lettres de St. Pie V sur les affaires religieuses de son temps en France_, Paris, 1828. To Philip II, October 13, 1567—Potter, p. 1 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 22, p. 50); to the duke of Savoy, October 18, 1567—Potter, p. 8 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 25, p. 54); to Priuli, Venetian ambassador in France, October 18—Potter, p. 6 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 24, p. 53). At the same time the Pope wrote to the duke of Nevers in terms of rejoicing that Charles IX had escaped at Meaux.—Potter, p. 3 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 23, p. 51), October 16, 1567. Within a month the Pope’s word began to be made good, for 10,000 pieces of gold were en route to France in the middle of November.—Potter, p. 10 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 26, p. 56), letter to the duke of Savoy of November 16, 1567. In it the Pope says he has written the duke of Lorraine to stop the reiters about to enter France.

[1142] The question of payment of the Swiss still remained to be settled and Charles IX was at his wits’ end and actually offered a mortgage of his frontier towns, save Lyons and the frontier of Burgundy, paying 5 per cent. interest in order to quiet the importunate demands of the cantons.—_Revue d’histoire diplomatique_, XIV (1900), 49, 50.

[1143] Request of Charles IX to the bishop of Mainz to permit the reiters to pass, December 9, 1567.—Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 4. John Casimir, second son of the elector palatine, Frederick III, levied troops for the Protestants. When protest was made against this action, he gave an evasive reply. See Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 27; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, II, 163, 164; La Noue, ed. 1596, p. 897.

On the other hand the landgrave was hostile to the prince of Condé and was fearful also of compromising himself with the Emperor and Spain.—_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 128, 164; Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 35.

[1144] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,864, December 15, 1567.

[1145] This is shown by a passage in which the elector of Saxony makes mention of an alliance which the French nobles had offered (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 131, 134). Although the prince of Condé in December declared that he had not entered into a treaty with the Flemish Calvinists (_ibid._, 143), it is probable that these proposals were accepted some months later. There is in existence the minute of a treaty with Condé and Coligny dated August, 1568 (_ibid._, III, No. 321, p. 285).

[1146] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,756, October 10, 1567.

[1147] La Popelinière, XII, 52 _bis_; D’Aubigné II, 236. La Noue himself, with characteristic modesty, scarcely mentions this feat.

[1148] “Journal de Lépaulart relig. du monastère de Saint-Crepin-le-Grand de Soissons, sur la prise de cette ville par les Huguenots en 1567,” _Bull. d. Soc. arch._, XIV (Soissons, 1860).

[1149] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,804, November 2, 1567. Metz was captured late in October by the Huguenots, but not the citadel.

[1150] _Ibid._, No. 1,822, November 16, 1567.

[1151] La Popelinière, XII, 52.

[1152] On the identity and career of Robert Stuart, see Claude Haton, I, 458, n. 2.

[1153] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 410, November 11, 1567. Montmorency lingered two days and died on November 12.

[1154] There are accounts of the battle of St. Denis in La Noue, _Mémoires_, chap. xiv; _Mém. du duc de Bouillon_, 379; D’Aubigné, Book IV, chap. ix; Claude Haton, I, 457; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 551 ff. The editor has subjoined a note (2) giving the literature of the subject.

[1155] Claude Haton, I, 495; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, Introd., xv.

The duke of Guise was criticized for not having pursued the Huguenots more hotly and cut the road by Charenton, or Corbeil, or at the ford of Lagny, which might have been done, for their army was in great disorder and depressed on account of the losses which it had suffered. The reason of the delay is probably to be found in the fact that the breach between the Guises and the Montmorencys was wider than ever at this moment. For the duke of Montpensier and the duke of Montmorency each claimed command of the vanguard. The King finally decided in favor of the former, whereupon Montmorency laid down his command. See Claude Haton, I, 461, 462 and note; _Bulletin de la Societé d’histoire de Normandie_, 1875-80, p. 279; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,833, November 24; No. 1,837, November 29, 1567; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 557.

[1156] Claude Haton, I, 495 and note.

[1157] The admiral sent Teligny to the King on November 13 for this purpose.—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,822, November 16, 1567; cf. No. 1,836. We know, from a letter of Charles IX to his brother, what the King’s terms would have been: (1) in the case of nobles, authorization of Protestant worship to those possessed of high justice or possessors of “pleins fiefs de haubert” i. e., fiefs that were noble, yet did not confer title, provided it were conducted within their own dwellings in the presence of their families and not more than fifty outside persons, and without arms; (2) absolute limitation of other worship to the places specifically granted in the edict of Amboise; (3) surrender of places and property seized by the Huguenots; (4) suppression of the Protestant cult within the walls of Lyons, but permission to worship at two leagues’ distance from the city; (5) interdiction of levies of money or men in the future and the discontinuance of Protestant associations and synods.—_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., xiv. It is a very remarkable fact that these precise terms had been recommended to Charles IX as a basis of settlement by Montluc in a memoir sent to the King in February 1565. See _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 3-9. Montluc made the further recommendation that the governments be divided by _sénéchaussées_ instead of by rivers, on the ground that rivers sometimes divided towns into two jurisdictions. His friction with Damville (cf. _ibid._, 103-6) probably accounts for the proposed change. Montluc also advised abolition of the _vice-sénéchaux_ (_ibid._, 8).

[1158] See the proclamation of Charles IX commanding the provost Paris to search out all gentlemen who have retired to their homes since the battle of St. Denis; and ordering them to return to the army under pain of forfeiture of their fiefs and property. Printed in Appendix XII. In the second part of _Coll. de St. Pétersbourg_, Vol. XXI, is a group of letters from Charles IX to the duke of Anjou running from December 2, 1567. In every page the question of the military operations of the second civil war comes up. It is evident that the gentlemen of the _maison du roi_ complained loudly of the service required of them, especially because they were so ill lodged.—La Ferrière, _Deux ans de mission à St. Pétersbourg_, 24.

[1159] During the occupation of the army all Protestant children who had been baptized in the Reformed religion by preachers were rebaptized according to the rites of the Roman religion, and godfathers and godmothers were given them and new names which were approved by the church.—Claude Haton, I, 512 and note.

[1160] Claude Haton, I, 504-12.

[1161] On December 6 he published a declaration in favor of the Huguenots.—_Bulletin de la Société du prot. franç._ XVI, 118. See also _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,920, the elector to Charles IX, January 4, 1568.

[1162] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,911, from the camp at Dessay, January 3, 1568.

[1163] _Ibid._, No. 1,806, November 3, 1567; No. 1,864 § 2, December 15, 1567. His resolution to assist the Huguenots led to the dismissal of his ambassador at the French court on December 17th.—_Ibid._, No. 1,889. In _ibid._, No. 1,956 there is an abstract of a long letter of the elector palatine written to Charles IX in remonstrance of the action of the King, and in justification of his own course.

[1164] A meeting of the electors was called for January 6, 1568, at Fulda, ostensibly for the purpose of preventing German enrolments for the war in France, but in reality that the Emperor might broach the possibility of recovering the Three Bishoprics.—Mundt to Cecil, January 6, 1568 in _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,927. I cannot understand how Hubert Languet could have fallen into the error of thinking that the queen mother made no opposition to the enlistment of troops in Germany for the Huguenot cause, as he says in _Epp. Arc._, I, 43. The statement puzzled Ranke (p. 233) who left it unsolved. The dispatch of Norris in _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,864, December 15, 1567, to the effect that Lignerolles was sent to Germany by the queen for this purpose clears up the matter. Catherine’s correspondence fails us on this head. But it is well known that many of her letters are scattered in private collections and were not procurable by La Ferrière.

[1165] Alva had no flattering opinion of the cardinal of Lorraine. In 1572 he wrote to Philip II: “Quand en faveur il est insolent et ne se souvient de personne, tandis que, quand il est en disgrace, il n’est bon à rien.”—Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, II, 267.

[1166] Gachard, _ibid._, I, 593, 594, Alva to Philip, November 1, 1567. On the margin of this dispatch Philip wrote this piece of casuistry with his own hand: “Me parece muy bien que hiziese lo que aqui dice, y tanto mas que aquello no hera romper la paz, pues yo no la hizé, ni la tengo, sino con el rey de Francia, y no con sus vasallos ereges, como seria, si esto se hiziese no estando él libre, como aqui se dice.”

[1167] “En caso de muerte del rey y de sus hermanos, tomarse ya la voz que el cardinal dize de rey de Francia para V. M., por el derecho de la reyna nuestra señora; que la ley salica, que dizen, es baya, y las armas la allanarian” (_ibid._, 594).

[1168] “Esto es el punto en que me parece que ay mas que mirar, porqué esto se podria mal hazer sin romper; y por otra parte, parece que seria duro dexar de abrazar á quien por tal causa se pone en mys manos; y pues creo que por este caso avra tiempo, qu’él me avise de su parecer sobre ello, segun allá estubienen las cosas.”—Gachard, _loc. cit._

[1169] Philip II approved this.—Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II_, I, 598: to Alva, November 12, 1567.

[1170] Gachard, I, 606-7, from Paris, December 4, 1567; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, Letter CLII; _Correspondance de Philippe II_, I, 605-7. The queen mother seems to have been frightened after the battle of St. Denis for she disclaims blame in advance, “before God and all the Christian princes,” if, in default of help, she be forced to make peace with the prince of Condé. At about the same time, she also wrote to Philip II in the same strain (quoted in part by Forneron, I, 348 from K. 1,507, No. 29). I do not find that this letter has been printed.

[1171] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 62.

[1172] Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 608.

[1173] “Porqué seria mala burla yr á meter fuego en casa agena, començandose á arder la propria.”—_Ibid._, 597: Alva to Philip II, November 6, 1567.

[1174] It was à propos of Catherine de Medici’s weakness at this time that the marshal Vieilleville bluntly said to Charles IX.: “Ce n’est point Votre Majesté qui a gagné la bataille [of St. Denis]; encore moins le prince de Condé. C’est le roi d’Espagne.”—Weiss, _L’Espagne sous Philippe II_, I, 119.

[1175] On the military state of Sens at this time see Charles IX’s postscript to his mother’s letter to Fourquevaux of December 7 in _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, 89, note.

[1176] Norris, writing to Queen Elizabeth on December 15, in one place says, “the reiters are 4,000 with 4,000 lansquenets” (§2); later in the course of the same letter, which is a long one and probably the information of several days running, he says, “6,800 with 6,000 lansquenets” (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,864, December 15, 1567). This seems to be confirmed by another report from France, December 26, which says “the reiters who have arrived amount to 6,500 men” (_ibid._, No. 1,882).

[1177] _Ibid._, No. 1,864 §2, No. 1,882, December 15-26, 1567. The reiters came “with certain pieces of artillery and 700 or 800 empty wagons, trusting to be no greater losers by this dissension than by the last” (_ibid._, No. 1,864, §3. Norris to Elizabeth).

[1178] _Ibid._, No. 1,889, December 28, 1567; No. 1,911, January 3, 1568. In _ibid._, Nos. 1,976 and 2,011, the following is given as the strength of the two armies: “Army of the King, 20,600 horsemen and 10,000 Swiss footmen; the numbers of the other footmen are not set down. Condé’s army, footmen 13,000; horsemen 11,900 where of reiters 6,200”—January, 1568. List of the troops of the prince of Condé with their commanders, amounting in all to 15,000 or 16,000 foot, and 14,000 horse, exclusive of those in garrison or serving in other parts of France—February 15, 1568. Norris wrote in February, 1568: “The prince has crossed the Seine, and is at present nothing inferior in number to the King’s army in infantry, but they are not esteemed so good for battle by reason of the Switzers. He has 3,000 more cavalry than the king has.”—_Ibid._, No. 1,981.

[1179] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,864, §4, December 15, 1567. Names of the different noblemen commanding in the army of the King of France (_ibid._, No. 1,918, January 4, 1568). Letters-patent of Charles IX, dated December 16, 1567, ordered the exodus of all of the “pretended Reformed religion” from Paris and enjoined the seizure of all their benefices and lands, which were to be annexed to the crown property, and the sale of all the goods of such subjects (_ibid._, Nos. 1,877, 1,878, December 21-24, 1567). In January a supplementary order commanded the sale of all goods and movables of those with the prince of Condé, and the annexation of all their lands and hereditaments to the crown (_ibid._, 1,914, January 3, 1568)—decrees which “were not left unexecuted in any point to the utmost” (Norris to Cecil, _ibid._, No. 1,889, December 28, 1567, §1). Cf. Charles IX’s letters-patent of February 21, 1568, bidding that the houses and real property held by base tenure belonging to rebels shall be sold in the same manner as personal property (_ibid._, No. 2,200, February 21, 1568). The same sort of measures were practiced elsewhere. For instance, in Agen, Protestant merchants suffered confiscation of grain and wine to the amount of 1,014 livres, 7 sous (_Arch. Commun._, Agen, Reg. CC, 302).

[1180] The original letter of Charles IX, written from Paris, December 17, 1567 to the duke of Anjou, reciting the terms of peace to be presented to the prince of Condé was sold in Paris in 1845. The duke’s instructions were to renew hostilities if the terms were not accepted. In Coll. Godefroy, XCVI, No. 8, is the safe-conduct given to the cardinal Châtillon by the duke of Anjou. It is dated December 25, 1567.

[1181] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,890, January 4, 1568.

[1182] _Ibid._, No. 1,919, January 4, 1568.

[1183] Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, II, 7, to Alva, January 22, 1568.

[1184] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 430, September 11, 1568; “A Florentine merchant greatly esteemed by these majesties and very useful to them in money matters called upon me today and gave me information concerning the king’s inability from want of money to continue the war.” Account of the sums of money paid to the troops, native and foreign, in the French king’s service during the month of January 1568, amounting to 987,052 livres, or 116,646£ 9_s._ sterling. The amounts reduced from French to English money by Cecil (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,978, January 1568).

[1185] _Ibid._, No. 1,914, January 3, 1568. For an amusing instance see No. 1,670.

[1186] _Ibid._, No. 2,024, February 12, 1568.

[1187] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,024, §1, February 24, 1568.

[1188] “The King’s army, finding what disorder the want of a good head has bred hitherto, are now content to accept any, be it not a marshal of France. It is now said that Mons. de Tavannes shall be M. d’Anjou’s lieutenant” (_ibid._, No. 2,024, February 24, 1568).

[1189] Some of them were captured by the King’s forces in a skirmish near Châtillon between the duke of Nevers and Montgomery, and broken upon the wheel. The poor wretches under the torture compromised twenty-five others of the Guard, who on March 6 were also horribly put to death (_ibid._, No. 2,062, March 12, 1568). After the peace of Longjumeau the Scotch captains who had joined the prince of Condé were deprived of their commissions, although the action was contrary to the edict. In fact a reorganization of the whole _maison du roi_ was made (_ibid._, No. 2,135, April 18, No. 2,178, May 12, 1568). The vacancies were filled by Swiss instead (_ibid._, Nos. 1,981, 1,987, February 1 and 6, 1568), so that the famous Scotch Guard in the end became the King’s Swiss Guard, which lasted down to the Revolution.

[1190] _Ibid._, No. 1,981, February 1, 1568.

[1191] He was accused of having “pretermitted many fair occasions to have fought with the prince.”

[1192] _Ibid._, No. 2,024, §2, February 24, 1568.

[1193] Claude Haton, I, 498 and note; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,833, November 24, 1567.

[1194] Claude Haton, I, 524.

[1195] These high prices were partly owing to the fact that speculators had bought up much of the grain, which rose in April to between 60 and 70 livres per muid. But in May, with the promise of a good harvest, the price dropped over one-half, from 15 sous tournois per bichet to 7 sous 6 deniers, to the great regret of the merchants who had counted upon a scarcity. On the other hand, the price of oats went higher, being sold at from 10 to 12 sous per bichet, or boisseau, for there was very little to be had after the passage of the troops; and because it ripened earlier, almost all of it was taken (Claude Haton, II, 523).

[1196] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,024, February 24, 1568.

[1197] So ominous was the temper of the Parisians that even the minor gates of the Louvre were equipped with drawbridges (_ibid._, No. 2,040, §4, March 1, 1568). Part of the indignation of Paris was due to the outrages of some reiters in the King’s army from Luxembourg and Lorraine, who robbed priests and despoiled churches, notwithstanding that they were in Catholic service, so much so that “the Parisians had rather had the prince of Condé’s people should approach Paris as they” (_ibid._, Nos. 2,040, 2,041, March 1, 1568).

[1198] _Rel. vén._, II, 145.

[1199] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,040, §3, March 1, 1568.

[1200] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, 136. La Rochelle was already the Huguenots’ most important point and already large supplies of gunpowder and ammunition, chiefly from England, were being brought in there (cf. the captain of La Rochelle to Queen Elizabeth, _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,057, March 10, 1568). La Popelinière, XII, 68-70, has a dissertation upon the history and institutions of La Rochelle.

The peace of Longjumeau put an end to Montluc’s plan for the seizure of La Rochelle, for which he had received the King’s sanction in February. See the documents in F. Fr. 15,544, fol. 187; 15,548, foll. 163 ff.

[1201] In the controversy between the count palatine and the King the former had asked that the word “perpetual” be inserted in the edict, so that the edict might not be revoked at will (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,968, 1567-68).

[1202] The balance was to be paid in two instalments at Frankfurt (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,135, April 18, 1568). All gifts and pensions were revoked until the debt was paid (_ibid._, No. 2,248, June 4, 1568). In Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, Nos. 35, 41-43 are a number of documents dealing with the pay of the reiters at this time. The whole sum required for the reiters was 1,440,000 livres, and the government at once set to work to collect it. The first collection seems to have been a sort of _don patriotique_ made by a house-to-house visitation, showing how pressing was the necessity. The government tried to borrow the money which John Casimir had raised for the Protestants, but which was not used on account of the peace, and offered to pay 16 per cent. interest for it (_C. S. P. For._, March 28, 1568). On March 23 the King issued letters patent forbidding all notaries and others receiving any contract for annuities or mortgages before the sum of 1,400,000 livres _tournois_ had been raised (_ibid._, No. 2,085). The duke of Alva was in a state of great anxiety for fear lest the reiters would come into the Netherlands and thought he discovered a plot to throw St. Omer into their hands (_ibid._, No. 2,230, April 25, 1568).

All the records abound with allusions to the rapacity of the reiters: “La nazione tedesca, nazione avara” (_Rel. vén._, II, 125 and notes).

“Les reîtres trouvaient beaucoup meilleur l’argent qu’on leur promettait d’Angleterre que les cidres de Normandie.”—La Noue.

“L’importunità dei Tedeschi che mai cessavano de domandare donazioni o paghe.”—Davila, I, 137.

“Ils consommeraient un gouffre d’argent—Facheux, avares, importuns.”—Brantôme, III, 196, 310.

[1203] But restricted as they were, the terms yet mightily offended the Guises, especially the cardinal of Lorraine who “did marvellously storm that the king would condescend to any peace with his subjects, whereat the king said he would agree thereto ‘maugre luy.’” (On the entire negotiations see _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,025, Feb. 24; Nos. 2,040-41, March 1-4; No. 2,054, March 9; Nos. 2,057, 2,058, March 10-11; No. 2,092, March 27, 1568). The final draft was completed on March 23; the edict was signed by Charles IX on March 26. It was published at Paris on the next day (_ibid._, Nos. 2,092-93).

[1204] _Ibid._, No. 2,058, March 11, 1568. Granvella expressed fear of universal famine in France, followed by the plague (Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II_, II, 17).

[1205] The preachers and the doctors in Paris in their sermons decried the King and his Council (Claude Haton, II, 527 and note; cf. _ibid._, 531; _Rel. vén._, II, 121).

[1206] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,273, June 17, 1568; _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 482 ff.; _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 18, 88, 142, 156; D’Aubigné, Book IV, chaps. xii-xiv.

[1207] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 2,115, 2,135, April 8-10, 1568.

[1208] _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 441.

[1209] For details see _ibid._, 443-64.

[1210] Montluc even ascribed the ravages of the plague to Damville in order to create popular prejudice against him! (_Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 449). His own words are: “Pour se montrer au peuple, qui avoit une marvelleuse envie de le voir, n’y pouvant arrêter à cause de la grande peste qui y est.” (Cf. his letters to Damville, December 31, 1567, and August 26, 1569, in _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 103 and 159.) Montluc was doubly incensed at this moment because the peace of Longjumeau canceled orders which he had received in February to attempt to take La Rochelle by sea (_ibid._, VII, 148 ff.; V, 107 note, 109 note, 184 note).

[1211] _Bulletin de la Soc. acad. du Var_, 1876.

[1212] Claude Haton, II, 525. He repeats at different times the current play upon words which designated these free-booting nobles as “gens-pille-hommes” (gentilhommes). In general, in his estimation, the nobility had much degenerated. See Vol. I, Introd., p. lxii.

[1213] Volunteer bands of searchers visited Huguenot houses, to inquire into their faith (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,191, May 17, 1568). At the court, certain of the nobles promised Charles to assure for all members of their retinue to be good Catholics (_ibid._, Nos. 2,191, 2,235, 2,236, 2,243, 2,248, May 17 to June 4, 1568).

[1214] “D’Anjou has marvellously stomached these dealings, and has kept his chamber, having uttered most despiteful words against them of the religion, saying that he hoped to march upon their bellies” (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,177, May 12, 1568).

[1215] _Ibid._, No. 2,115, §1, April 8, 1568.

[1216] See the revelations of Norris to Cecil in _ibid._, No. 2,100, March 30, 1568. As earnest of the royal purpose the marshal Montmorency set at once about disarming the people of Paris.

[1217] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 22, 23.

[1218] Probably neither the cardinal nor Montluc knew that the other had been in secret correspondence with Philip II. Knowing Philip’s methods, it is likely that he kept them in ignorance of it. This was his way (cf. Forneron, I, 327).

[1219] Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 328, 329, letter of March 5, 1564.

[1220] _Ibid._, V, 76, 77 and notes.

[1221] _Ibid._, V, 145.

[1222] Cited by Forneron, _Histoire de Philippe II_, I, 327.

[1223] The ordinance of Moulins specifically alluded to the growing popular nature of these confraternities: “Qu’on abolisse entièrement les confréries établies sous prétexte de religion parmi le _petit_ peuple, les festins, les répas, les bâtons (bâtons de Confrérie, qui servent à porter aux confréries l’Image de quelque saint, ou la représentation de quelque mystère) et autres choses semblables, qui donnent lieu à la superstition, aux troubles, à la débauche, aux querelles, et aux monopoles” (De Thou, V, Book XXXIX, p. 183, in the article prohibiting them). But it was as impossible then as now to enforce a law in the face of a public opinion which did not sympathize with the provision. Public opinion not merely favored their formation; the very officers of the crown promoted their organization. La Popelinière, XI, 12, makes this point.

[1224] “Discorso sopra gli umori di Francia di M^[r]. Nazaret, 1570,” Barberini Library 3,269, fol. 63. See Appendix XIII.

[1225] D’Aubigné, III, 2.

[1226] _Mémoires de Tavannes_, ed. Michaud and Poujoulat, séries I, VIII, 288, 289; Pasquier, Book IV, letter 23; Collection Trémont, Nos. 1,367, 1,382; cf. La Popelinière, XI, 7-12; Pingaud, _Les Saulx-Tavannes_, p. 61.

[1227] _State Papers, Foreign_, Elizabeth, XCVII, No. 1,711. A printed pamphlet. See Appendix XIV.

[1228] Raynal, _Histoire du Berry_, IV, 79-83. The text of the act is found in Thauvessière’s _Histoire du Berry_, 189.

[1229] The text is given in Claude Haton, II, 1152. Cf. Vicomte de Meaux, _Luttes religieuses en France_, 177, 178; Capefigue, _La réforme et la ligue_, 360.

[1230] Feret, _Clermont-en-Beauvaisis pendant les troubles de la ligue_, Clermont, 1853.

[1231] _State Papers, Foreign_, Elizabeth, C, No. 1,863. See Appendix XV.

[1232] _Hist. du Languedoc_, XI, 509-10 and XII; _Preuves_, No. 300, p. cxiii; _Cabinet historique_, II, 217. This league was much more formal in its organization than any of the others. In addition to securing the authorization of the Parlement, the leaders had secured the sanction of Pius V in the March _preceding_. The bull was granted March 15.

[1233] _Cabinet historique_, II, 219.

[1234] Bordenave, _Hist. de Béarn et de Navarre_, 139-45. I venture to suggest the cardinal of Lorraine as a possible instigator, from Bordenave’s words: “quelques autres ... sollicitez par quelques uns des _principaux du conseil_ de France.” Philip II threw new troops into Spanish Navarre at this time, either in consequence of Jeanne d’Albret’s energetic action or to co-operate with the league, if it were successful. Fourquevaux ascertained the fact, but was in the dark as to the reason for it (_Dépêches de Fourquevaux_, II, 25, November, 1568).

[1235] A letter of Coligny, July 29, 1568, shows that the Huguenot leader was aware of the formation of these provincial leagues. After complaining of the assassination of one of D’Andelot’s lieutenants, he protests against the general violence: “Ce que faict croire que ce sont des fruictz et offices des confraires du Saint-Esprit et sainctes ligues qu’ils appellent; mais si on voit que infiniz meurtres et massacres qui se sont faictz avec une effrénée licence en tous les endroictz de ce royaume depuys la paciffication il n’en ayt esté faict aucune justice ou chastiment, quelque déclaration que Vostre Majesté ayt faicte de sa volonté et intention, je n’en espère pas davantage de cestuy-cy, estant bien facile à cognoistre que ce sont choses projectées et délibérées avec les gouverneurs des provinces, et que cela ne se faict poinct sans adveu ou pour le moins sans un tacite consentement.”—_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, 163, note.

[1236] Montmorency continually threw his influence in favor of peace and moderation, slapping the Guises, however, in his utterances. “The Duke Montmorency said there was nothing more necessary for the maintenance of the king’s estate than the sincere observance of the edict of pacification, and such as labour to the contrary are neither friends to the king nor his crown; and for his own part if the king did not foresee in time with due execution of justice this growing mischief, he was resolved with his leave to depart the court with his friends and allies, and so to withdraw himself from such as under the pretext of maintenance of their religion, continually nourished this division, and in the end put out the glory and renown of the French empire.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,177, §1, May 12, 1568.

On June 17 Norris wrote to Cecil: “Montmorency has come to the court. The process between him and the duke of Guise for the county of Dammartin will in the end break into open enmity.”—_Ibid._, No. 2,273.

[1237] “The four marshals agree all in one against the Cardinal.”—_Ibid._, No. 2,235, May 31, 1568.

[1238] “All things are ruled now by M. d’Anjou, who though young is a most earnest and cruel enemy against the favourers of religion, and has his privy counsellors, the cardinal of Lorraine being the chiefest, and further has his chancellor, who seals all such things as the good old chancellor of the King refuses to seal; who neither for love nor dread would seal anything against the statutes of the realm.”—_Ibid._, No. 2,178, May 12, 1568. On the whole affair, see _ibid._, No. 2,177, §2, May 12, 1568.

[1239] _Ibid._, No. 2,115, §2, April 8; No. 2,177, §3, May 12, 1568.

[1240] Duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de Condé_, II, App. I.

[1241] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,235, May 31, 1568.

[1242] “The garrisons in the Ile-de-France are thought to attend no other thing but till the corn be off the ground to begin where they left off.”—_Ibid._, No. 2,178, May 12, 1568.

[1243] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 2,235, 2,243, 2,248, May 31, June 2-4, 1568.

[1244] As to localities see Duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de Condé_, II, 284.

[1245] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,296, June 22, 1568. They feared a plot to capture them by trickery, as Egmont and Hoorne had been trapped in Flanders. According to report, Lavallette was to have seized the prince, Chavigny the admiral, and Tavannes D’Andelot. The warning was probably given by some secretary whom Coligny had corrupted, for shortly after this time several secretaries to the Catholic leaders were dismissed (_ibid._, No. 2,256, June 7, 1568; cf. D’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de Condé_, II, 12, n. 2, and p. 287). Coligny also bribed the secretary of Don Francesco de Alava, Spanish ambassador in France (see _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,230, May 24, 1568 and Introd., p. xxvi).

[1246] _Ibid._, Nos. 2,256, 2,304, 2,323, June 7, 28, July 5, 1568. For an instance of the feeling between the prince and the cardinal see Sir Henry Norris to the queen, _ibid._, No. 2,248, June 1, 1568 and Duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de Condé_, II, 12 and n. 1.

[1247] This was the time the word first appeared (D’Aumale, II, 12, note 3).

[1248] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,295, Norris to Cecil, June 23, 1568. On the whole negotiation see Robinson, “Queen Elizabeth and the Valois Princes,” _Eng. Hist. Rev._, II, 40; Hume, _Courtships of Queen Elizabeth_, 114-49. Hume, however, is in error, p. 115, in believing that the negotiation arose _after_ the peace of St. Germain in 1570. The intercourse must have been kept very much in the dark, judging from the obscure allusions in the following: Sir Henry Norris to the earl of Leicester, _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,241, August 20, 1568—Marshal Montmorency is very desirous to have answer to the letter which he wrote to Leicester; the queen to the duchess of Montmorency, _ibid._, No. 2,472, August 27, 1568—Thanks her for her courteous and honorable entertainment in her house, and near her person of the daughter of her chamberlain, Lord Edward Howard. Walsingham warned his government at this time against spies of the cardinal of Lorraine in London. See Appendix XVI.

[1249] “More have been murdered since the publishing of the peace than were all these last troubles. Daily murders are committed without any punishment to the offenders, others violently taken out of their houses in the night and led to the river being without remorse drowned.”—_C. S. P. For._, Nos. 2,383, 2,339, 2,407, July 31-August 7, 1568.

[1250] The proceedings here on both sides are measured by the success in Flanders (_ibid._, No. 2,273, June 17, 1568; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, II, 47; _Dépêches de Fourquevaux_, II, 24).

[1251] In February, 1568 the wholesale condemnation of the people of the Low Countries had been pronounced by the inquisition and confirmed by the Philip II, (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 171).

[1252] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,432, August 17, 1568, Mundt to Cecil from Strasburg.

[1253] Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 60; _Epist. ad Camer._, 79 and 84.

[1254] Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 64; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 208.

[1255] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau,_ III, 207; Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 7, Marshal Cossé to the King, June 20, 1568.

[1256] See Haag, _La France protestante_, art., “Cocqueville.” The admiral Coligny disavowed any complicity in the enterprise. For the fate of the other columns see _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 212, 220, 227.

[1257] _Ibid._, 239, 255. The prince of Orange anticipated the disaster of Jemmingen, for he disapproved of the rash policy of his brother. See a letter on this head written by him to Louis of Nassau in July, 1568 (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 257, and the latter’s reply, July 17, _ibid._, III, 264, 265). Alva had been so certain of Spanish victory that in advance of it he offered Charles IX the use of Spanish troops (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,379, §2, July 29, 1568).

[1258] “They (Huguenots) attend the success of the war in Flanders.”—_Ibid._

[1259] In September, 1568, a royal edict was promulgated forbidding the _public_ profession of any but the Catholic religion, and revoking all former edicts. Text in _Recueil de Fontanon_, IV, 294. Montluc claims that he was the author of the idea and that he sent a rough draft of such an edict to Charles IX (De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 153, 154). In intimation of this policy, in August an oath of allegiance and obedience had been exacted by Charles IX of all the Huguenot leaders (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,419, August 9, 1568; cf. No. 2,407, August 7 and Duc d’Aumale, _Hist. des princes de Condé_, II, 9).

[1260] _Rel. vén._, II, 123.

[1261] Claude Haton, II, 532; _Coll. des autographes de M. de L—— de Nancy_ (Paris, 1855), No. 477; Henry, duke of Anjou to Matignon, King’s lieutenant in Normandy, October 8, 1568, recommending him to distribute the gendarmerie in places most suitable to protect the country.

[1262] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 2,352, 2,379, July 14 and 29, 1569.

[1263] _Ibid._, No. 2,379, July 29, 1568; on the calculative policy of the French crown see Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 92 and La Noue’s comments in _Mémoires militaires_, chap. xii.

[1264] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,379, July 29, 1568.

[1265] Letter of August 23, 1568 analyzed in De Thou, Book XLIV.

[1266] See the complaints of the prince of Condé to the King, under date of June 29 and July 22, 1568 in Duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de Condé_, II, App. I.

[1267] See the gist of the prince of Condé’s petition, summarized in _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,451, August 23, 1568. As an instance of the care of the government to b forehanded, agents of the crown secretly measured even the height of the wall in the case of towns of doubtful allegiance. Coligny complained of the attacks which his gentlemen and those of his brother D’Andelot suffered. At Dijon the prince of Condé prosecuted a person whom he accused of secretly having measured the walls of Noyers (Claude Haton, II, 537, note).

[1268] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,464, August 25, 1568; cf. No. 2,484.

[1269] Claude Haton, II, 539; Le Laboureur, II, 593.

[1270] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,441, August 20, 1568; Condé was at Noyers, Coligny at Tanlay (Yonne): D’Aubigné, Book III, 5, note; Duc d’Aumale, _Hist. des princes de Condé_, II, 367.

[1271] Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 64, 69.

[1272] _Ibid._, I, 75; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 284-86. The prince of Orange at this time was near Cleves having an army but no money. See a letter of the prince of Orange to the duke of Württemberg and the margrave of Baden asking for pecuniary assistance. September 17, 1568 (_ibid._, III, 291). His plans again failed. He tried to enter Picardy for the purpose of uniting with the Huguenots. But the alertness of the marshal Cossé again prevented Genlis as it had foiled Cocqueville, and the prince was compelled to abandon his purpose. At Strasburg his army was dissolved (_ibid._, III, 295, 303, 313-16; Languet, _Epist. ad Camer._, 89; _Epist. secr._, I, 75).

[1273] Even La Noue, 804 and Beza, II, 277, assert this.

[1274] Elizabeth of Valois, queen of Spain, had died October 3, 1568.

[1275] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 2,640, 2,666, November 22, December 8, 1568.

[1276] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,441, August 20, 1568.

[1277] Tavannes, chap. xxi.

[1278] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,477, August 29, 1568. Norris states the fact that Condé and the admiral were warned by the letters they intercepted. The duc d’Aumale (_Hist. des princes de Condé_, II, 13) has shown the deliberate intention of Tavannes so to do.

[1279] D’Aubigné, III, 24: “Le prince ... fit publier les loix militaires.” Issued from La Rochelle, September 9, 1568. Summary in _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,514. De Serres gives the text at p. 158. Delaborde gives the admiral Coligny the credit for these regulations (III, 522). Cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,486, discourse of the cardinal Châtillon, who attributes the evils of France to the cardinal of Lorraine and refutes the charge of ambition brought against the Huguenot leaders. The cardinal fled to England at this time (see La Ferrière, _Le XVI^[e] siècle et les Valois_, 217; D’Aubigné, III, 12, note 31). He died in 1571. There was a rumor that Coligny, too, had gone to England (Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 109).

[1280] Fontanon, IV, 292, 294; Claude Haton, II, 540; (September 25) _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,561, §1, September 30, 1568; _ibid._, _Ven._, No. 433, September 28, 1568. A supplementary edict suppressed all offices of judicature and finance held by the Huguenots (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,674, December 16, 1568).

[1281] _Ibid._, No. 2,363, July 20, 1568.

[1282] _Ibid._, No. 2,467, August 27, 1568.

[1283] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 430, September 11, 1568. Other sources of revenue were a loan upon the security of the wine duties for several years—a heavy burden upon the people (Claude Haton, II, 547)—which yielded about 300,000 crowns per annum. In addition, the King raised a benevolence of 50,000 crowns from Paris, and Venice loaned 100,000 crowns (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,640, November 22, 1568) later increased to 200,000. The Pope later authorized the sale of 50,000 crowns’ worth of the temporalities of the church, but the sales were so managed by certain of the clergy that the government got little from them (_ibid._, No. 233, April, 1569, summary of an ordinance of Charles IX).

[1284] For details see Norris to Cecil, _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,550, September 25, 1568.

[1285] Taillander, _Vie de L’Hôpital_, 200.

[1286] Even Biragues, now the chancellor, was in the secret pay of Spain (_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 387).

[1287] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,490, September 1; No. 2,529, September 15, 1568. The two Protestant places of worship in Orleans were burned (_ibid._, No. 2,561, §2, September 30, 1568). Things would have gone worse with the Protestants of Orleans had it not been for the Politique marshal Vieilleville, whose government it was, and who did all in his power to protect the Huguenots (_ibid._, No. 190, March 24, 1569).

[1288] Jeanne d’Albret, who had been at Nérac, reached La Rochelle on September 28, having crossed the Garonne “under the nose of Montluc” (Olhagaray, 575), who, it is said, had orders to intercept her (Palma Cayet, Part I, 166). Montluc glosses over his negligence in this particular (_Commentaires_, III, 175).

[1289] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,561, September 30, 1568. D’Andelot was in Brittany, (_ibid._, No. 2,527, September 15, 1568), but on September 16 he crossed the Loire (La Noue, chap. xix) with 1,500 horse and 20 ensigns of foot (D’Aubigné, III, 13, note 7) in spite of the strict injunctions of the King to prevent him (D’Aubigné, III, 14, note).

[1290] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,610, §2, October 29, 1568. Duke William of Saxony earnestly begged Charles IX to employ his soldiery (_ibid._, No. 2,640, §5, November 22, 1568) and the margrave of Baden accepted a command of reiters in the King’s army (Le Laboureur, II, 724). The duke of Deuxponts offered 8,000 reiters and 40 ensigns of lansquenets to Condé (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,666, §1, December 8, 1568). They were to have no pay for two months, expecting to pay themselves by seizing the towns and castles belonging to the house of Guise in Lorraine and Champagne. In the end England paid for their services (see the record of the receipts in _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,011, September 10, 1571; No. 2,123, November 13, 1571). The Catholic reiters were to be paid by a forced loan exacted of the Parisians (_ibid._, No. 2,666, December 8, 1568).

[1291] North to Cecil, _C. S. P. For._, December 30, 1568, January 11, 1569.

[1292] For description of it see _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,640, §15, November 22, 1568. The engagement of Jazeneuil that followed, November 17, was a blow to them (see La Noue, chap. xxi; D’Aubigné, III, 37; _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,640, §1). The minute account of the duc d’Aumale may be found in _Hist. des princes de Condé_, II, 26-34. Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France_, 204-9, has an admirable account.

[1293] Condé’s army before the defeat at Jazeneuil was estimated at 12,000 foot and 4,000 horse, all well mounted and armed, besides a very large number of irregular troops.

[1294] Fourquevaux to Catherine de Medici, January 13, 1569, on the authority of a letter of the Spanish ambassador in France, dated January 7, 1568 (_Dépêches de Fourquevaux_, II, 47). Alava must have regarded the news as highly important, for the courier was only six days in making the journey to Madrid.

[1295] Fourquevaux, II, 31, 54.

[1296] Coll. Godefroy, XCVI, William of Orange to Charles IX, December 21, 1568.

[1297] Alva sent word to Charles IX at all hazards to hold the prince of Condé back, himself promising to take care of Orange. The King sent the Spanish duke a very large commission, not only to levy upon the country for necessities but even to enter the French walled towns—so far were the two crowns now in accord (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,666, December 8, 1568).

[1298] The alarm of the government at this hour over Paris may be measured by two police regulations of the time. One ordered search to be made throughout the town twice a week, in all hostelries and other places, and forbade mechanics to leave their houses on certain days. The other allowed those of the religion who had been forbidden to leave their houses on certain days to appoint one of their servants to go about the town on their affairs. He was to have a certificate signed by the captain and _commissaires_ of the quarter, and to be unarmed. The _commissaires_ were to make a weekly search in the houses of those of the religion, to make _procès-verbal_ of the names of all the domestics, signed by the master of the house, and to remove all arms found therein (_ibid._, No. 2,671, December 11; No. 2,684, December 23, 1568). Both ordinances were registered by the Parlement. During the Christmas season no Calvinist was permitted to stir out of doors (_ibid._, No. 2,688, §3, December 26, 1568).

[1299] “The good disposition and order that is kept in the prince’s army is much to be commended, nothing like oppressing the country where they pass, as that of M. d’Anjou, which was waxed hateful by their insolent behavior, both to Protestants and Catholics. M. d’Anjou has bestowed the greatest part of his army in the towns upon the river of Loire.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 12, January 4, 1569.

The presence of the royal army in Anjou, under the command of the duke of Anjou, was a heavy burden upon the people of the province, which already had suffered heavily from the depredations of the Huguenots in the preceding year. The municipal council of Angers, on November 4, was called upon to furnish 800 pairs of stockings, 1,500 pairs of shoes, powder, bread, hay, straw, oats, pikes, shovels, mattocks, and other implements. The town was filled with sick and wounded soldiers (Joubert, _Les misères de l’Anjou, etc._, 36).

[1300] Orange was also in want of pay for his troops (Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 82).

[1301] _Revue d’histoire diplomatique_, XIV (1900), 51-52, 64.

[1302] _C. S. P. For._, No. 22, January 10, 1569; No. 151, March 5, 1569; La Popelinière, Book XV; De Thou and D’Aubigné add nothing new.

[1303] On the hardness of the winter of 1568-69 see La Noue, chap, xxiv; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 514; _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 156; Whitehead, _Coligny_, 202.

[1304] Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 57. Remonstrance of Jean de Montluc against the continuance of the war, December 2, 1568. In the council of the King a motion was made that the Protestants should be permitted to enjoy the benefit of the edicts granted before; that Condé should be given the government of Saintonge, and be given leave to aid Orange against Spain. But neither Catherine de Medici nor the King would listen to the proposal, and the cardinal of Lorraine argued that it would be dangerous to further Condé in any way (_C. S. P. For._, No. 23, January 10, 1569).

[1305] Potter, _Pie V_, 19; ed. Gouban, Book III, No. 4, p. 135, letter to the cardinal Bourbon, January, 1569; _ibid._, p. 23; ed. Gouban,