The massacre of St. Bartholomew : $b Preceded by a history of the religious wars in the reign of Charles IXWhite, Henry
History
The massacre of St. Bartholomew : $b Preceded by a history of the religious wars in the reign of Charles IX
White, Henry
France -- History -- Wars of the Huguenots, 1562-1598; Saint Bartholomew's Day, Massacre of, France, 1572
be pleased to see a disturbance. The queen-mother does all she can to
prevent it: the poor lady watches and toils incessantly.”?[374] On the
23d December, Morvilliers writes again: “The king and queen are always
in trouble through the discords of the Guises and the admiral. No court
can settle it, for the admiral objects to the parliaments and the
others to the great council.”
Several temporary arrangements had been made, and at last, when the
three years had nearly expired, the Guises, whose desire for vengeance
had grown all the stronger for being repressed, appeared at Moulins and
renewed their cries for justice. On the 12th January, 1566, Charles
published a declaration that “it was his desire to bring the difference
about the homicide to a happy issue, and that he forbade each of the
two houses to attempt any thing against the other.” After a wearisome
series of explanations, more worthy of pettifogging attorneys than of
brave soldiers, Coligny, in the presence of the king, declared “that
he had not committed the murder or abetted it, and that he had never
approved of it, then or now.”[375] With this the widow and the Cardinal
of Lorraine expressed themselves satisfied, and declared they would
no longer entertain revengeful feelings. Thereupon the two parties
embraced; but the young Duke Henry of Guise still held out, and in
the very presence of the queen challenged Coligny to single combat.
“The admiral charges me,” he said, “with plotting his assassination.
I will not deny it, but shall esteem it a singular favor to be shut
up with him in a room, when I will show him that I am quite capable
of defending myself, and need not employ other people to settle my
quarrels.”
So far the queen-mother’s plans were frustrated, and she was hardly
more successful in arranging the difference between Marshal Montmorency
and the Cardinal of Lorraine. In consequence of the quarrels between
the partisans of the two religions, the possession and carrying of
arms--especially fire-arms--had been strictly prohibited in Paris.
Montmorency, “a wise man and loving the public peace,”[376] who after
Marshal Brissac’s death had been made governor of Paris, enforced
the edict in a manner never contemplated by the king. The Cardinal
of Lorraine, returning from the Council of Trent, was escorted to
the capital by a number of gentlemen and relatives, but they were
forbidden to enter unless they laid aside their spears and arquebuses
(8th January, 1565). The prelate paid no attention to the order, upon
which Montmorency fell upon his escort at the Innocents’ Cemetery in
the Rue St. Denis, killed some, wounded others, and so frightened the
churchman that he leaped off his horse and took refuge in a neighboring
house, whence he safely reached his own hotel during the night,
Pâle en couleur, de ses membres tremblant,
Mieux un corps mort qu’homme vif ressemblant.
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