The history of the Bastile, and of its principal captivesDavenport, R. A. (Richard Alfred)
History
The history of the Bastile, and of its principal captives
Davenport, R. A. (Richard Alfred)
Bastille -- History; Political crimes and offenses -- France; Prisons -- France -- History
In the following year, 1583, there occurred another, but comparatively
a trivial, illustration of the ambitious views of the Guises, and
the vacillation and timidity of the king. Francis de Rosières, a
native of Toul, born in 1534, was a man of prepossessing manners, and
of considerable erudition and eloquence. He rose to be archdeacon of
Toul, and through the patronage of cardinal de Guise, obtained several
benefices, and the office of counsellor to the duke of Lorraine. To prove
his gratitude to his benefactors, and probably at their instigation, he
composed and published a voluminous work, on “the genealogy of the dukes
of Lorraine and Bar.” Its evident purpose was to degrade the reigning
family, and exalt that of the Guises. Not satisfied with tracing back
in a direct line to Charlemagne the descent of the house of Lorraine,
he carried it further through the starless night of ages, up to a son
of Clodion, from whom Merovæus was pretended to have usurped the crown.
The inference was easy, that the monarchs of the Capetian race were
intruders, and that the Guises alone had a legitimate right to the
throne. From thence to the assertion of the right was but a single step,
on the propriety of which it was for prudence to decide, the question of
justice being already settled. This doctrine was, in fact, openly taught
in other works, which the Guises, however, affected to disavow, and to
regard as fabrications of the protestants, for the purpose of throwing
suspicion on their loyalty.
In addition to his laboured genealogy of his patrons, Rosières had been
guilty of various misrepresentations, and of a personal attack upon
Henry; and he had supported his fabric of falsehood by documents which
were manifestly spurious, and by altering others, so as to suit them to
his purpose. The other libels Henry had repelled only by employing Pons
de Thyard, a man of varied talents, to write an elaborate answer: against
this he resolved to proceed in a different manner; he treated it as a
state crime. He who had swallowed the camel of last year’s conspiracy,
now strained at this gnat of a volume. And here again his infirmity of
purpose betrayed him to the scorn of his enemies. Commencing vigorously,
he despatched Brulart to Toul, to interrogate Rosières; after which the
archdeacon was conveyed to Paris, and housed in the Bastile. Thus far,
Henry seemed to have meditated a tragedy; but, in its further progress
the drama dwindled down to a miserable farce. The plan which he adopted
had the demerit of alike disclosing an inclination to mortify the Guises,
and a dread of offending them. It was the latter feeling which prompted
him to prohibit the parliament from intervening in the cause, because
that body would probably pass a sentence derogatory to the house of
Lorraine; it was the former feeling which induced him to persevere in
seeking to gain the shadow of a triumph. He could not see that any thing
short of complete victory was in reality a defeat.
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