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
There was not much time to lose in manœuvring, for the day was drawing
to a close. Condé charged furiously upon the advancing enemy, sweeping
every thing before him, so much to the admiration of the spectators
that they loudly applauded the gallant Huguenots. “If my master had
only 6000 horsemen like those white-coats[397] yonder,” exclaimed the
sultan’s envoy, who had been watching the fight from the city walls,
“he would soon be master of the world.” But the Huguenots were so
outnumbered that they were gradually hemmed in by the larger masses
of the enemy, and compelled to retreat. The approach of night saved
them from farther disaster. The battle was fatal to the constable,
who seems to have fallen a victim to private malice. In the heat of a
charge, when wounded and separated from his troops, he saw one Robert
Stuart ride up to him and present a pistol. The constable, expecting
to be made a prisoner, called out: “You do not know me!” “It is just
because I do know you,” replied the Scotchman, “that I give you
this.” And he fired,[398] the ball shattering Montmorency’s shoulder
and throwing him to the ground, not however before he had broken
Stuart’s jaw with the fragment of the sword he still grasped in his
warlike hand. His death was like his life. When a priest approached to
administer religious consolation, he smilingly begged to be left in
peace, “for it would be a shameful thing,” he added, “to have known
how to live fourscore years, and not know how to die one short quarter
of an hour.” The queen-mother went to visit him before his death,
and, as she bent over his bed to console him, he advised her to make
peace as soon as possible, adding that “the shortest follies are the
best.”[399] Marshal Vieilleville was of the same opinion. “It was not
your majesty that gained the battle,” said he to the king, “much less
the Prince of Condé!” “Who then gained it?” asked Charles. “The King
of Spain,” answered Vieilleville; “for on both sides valiant captains
and brave soldiers have fallen, enough to conquer Flanders and the Low
Countries.” The united loss was nearly six hundred.
The death of the constable was a serious blow to the Moderate party,
although he did not actually belong to them. He had learned wisdom
as he advanced in life, showing himself one of those rare men--rare
at all times, but especially so in the sixteenth century--who could
accommodate themselves to altered circumstances. His deep loyalty
to the crown made him suspicious of the Lorraine faction; and his
relationship to Condé and the Chatillons tempered the zeal of his
orthodoxy. He saw clearly that no one would gain by the war, except the
enemies of France. Languet adds that, taught by experience, Montmorency
had learned that the Huguenots could not be crushed without the ruin of
the kingdom; and he labored strenuously to carry out the Pacification
of Amboise to the great disgust of the pope and Philip of Spain.[400]
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