Paris from the Earliest Period to the Present Day; Volume 1Walton, William
History
Paris from the Earliest Period to the Present Day; Volume 1
Walton, William
Paris (France) -- Description and travel; Paris (France) -- History
The massacre of Saint-Bartholomew has found apologists, even at this
late day,--an historical work issued by the house of Firmin-Didot, in
1898, purporting to give an impartial résumé of the acts of the League
during the reigns of Henri III and Henri IV, declares that the people
took part in this tragedy because "their zeal had been misled," and they
believed that they were going, not to massacre, but to battle "against
enemies who menaced their faith and their liberty." The League,
according to this champion of the Church, M. V. de Chalambert, "was at
once legitimate in its principles, energetic and sagacious in its acts,
in its faith;" ... "if the family of Lorraine had the signal honor of
personifying, during a space of nearly fifty years, the Catholic cause
in France, it owed this honor to the faith, to the sincere zeal, and to
the great qualities of its princes, not to the schemes of ambition." A
more important work, the _History of the Princes of Condé_, by the Duc
d'Aumale, in seven volumes, is much more impartial, though the
distinguished author's sympathies are naturally enlisted in this
subject. He quotes with just appreciation the answer of the young Prince
of Condé, Henri de Bourbon, to Charles IX after the massacre, when the
king summoned him before him and curtly gave him his choice: "_Messe,
mort, ou Bastille?_" (the mass, death, or the Bastile.) "God will not
permit, my king and my seigneur, that I should select the first. As for
the other two, they are at your discretion, which may God temper with
His Providence."
"The intellectual life of the people," says the author of the _Mémoires
du peuple français_, "had gained, rather than lost, amid the terrible
emotions of public affairs. In the interiors of the houses, everything
demonstrated that literature, the arts, the sciences, commerce, and
industry were far from having succumbed during the long crises of the
preceding reigns." It was during the reign of Charles IX that the
beginning of the year was fixed at the first of January, by an edict
issued in 1564. It had previously been considered as commencing at
Easter.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account