HST3034 – The Massacre of St
Bartholomew – and its Aftermath
Presentation 8
The Enigmas of a Massacre
• Why was it so extensive?
• Why did it occur in the immediate aftermath of a royal marriage?
• Why did it occur in a period of peace?
• Why did the monarchy accept responsibility for the massacre?
There is a gap between those contemporary sources who were witnesses
(few) and those contemporary sources who claimed to know what
happened (large). Among the few, even fewer are reliable witnesses.
They include –
-Filippo Cavriana – an Italian physician from Mantua in the entourage of
the duke of Nevers
-Tomasso Sassetti – an Italian informer, probably working for Francis
Walsingham, English ambassador in Paris, and resident in Lyon
- Italian ambassadors at the French court (Michiel and Cavalli for Venice,
Salviati for Rome, Petrucci for Florence)
The Massacre as Event
• Began in Paris on the early morning of Sunday 24 August 1572 with well-armed
catholics circulating through the city wearing white armbands, circulating around
houses with known protestants, killing them in cold blood and carrying their bodies
to the Seine. Barricades were erected to make it impossible to move around the
city, and the gates were closed
• Tocsin sounded before daybreak at St Germain l’Auxerrois, followed by other city
parish churches and the killing amplified in scope. Armed catholic guards patrolled
the streets, controlling those who tried to move through them, killing suspects on
the spot
• Mass killing continued for three days. Although the paroxysm died down
thereafter, there are sporadic murders through to Saturday 30 August
• We do not know how many victims were killed in the capital. Contemporary
accounts vary between 1,000 and 100,000. We know how much was paid to the
gravediggers at the cemetery of the Holy Innocents for burying the bodies of those
carried down the Seine and washed up lower down the river (= 1,825 bodies).
There might have been c. 3,000??? Killed in Paris
• The event was copied in up to 15 similar massacres in other French cities
(bringing the total dead to 10,000????. St Bartholomew was not an ‘event’ but a
‘season’ (Michelet)
The nebulae of provincial massacres in the wake of that at St
Bartholomew in Paris, 24 August 1572
An Unpredictable Event
• The Peace of St-Germain (Pacification of 1570), signed on 8 August 1570
• The Royal Entry into Paris, 29 March 1571
• The Ceremonies for the marriage of Henri de Navarre with the king’s sister,
Marguerite de Navarre, 18 August 1572
• The Attempted Assassination of the Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, 22 August
1572
Trying to explain the unpredictability of the massacre, contemporaries (protestants
mainly, but also catholics) made sense of it by interpreting it as part of a
premeditated plot. The peace had been a sham. The marriage of Henri de
Navarre constituted a lure. The attempted assassination is the proof of a plot.
The massacre is the sign that the intention was to eliminate protestants from the
capital. If it was a plot, there had to be plotters….
Those held responsible for the
Massacre
• Catherine de Médicis – protestants created a ‘black legend’ of the Florentine queen,
influenced by Machiavelli, with a taste for the black arts of magic, and a single-minded
desire to hold on to power at all costs; still echoed in modern accounts (Mariéjol: modern
biographies of Catherine)
• Philip II and the Papacy – making use of ‘dupes’ in France (Guises, the magistrates in
the Parlement of Paris, etc). It was an international conspiracy, orchestrated to prevent
France coming to the aid of the Dutch rebels (Nicola Sutherland: Jean-Louis Bourgeon)
• The Guise Family, with the active collaboration of the king’s brother, Henri duke of
Anjou (later Henri III) (Janine Garrisson)
• No one – it was an ‘event without a history’ becoming (after the event) ‘a history
without an event’. It was a ‘love crime’ begun by those around the king who believed
that the only way to ‘save the peace’ was to ‘eliminate (selectively) those who threatened
its continued existence’ (Denis Crouzet)
Everyone agrees:-That responsibility for the assassination of Gaspard de Coligny may be different from
responsibility for the massacre
- That the key difficulty is to explain the extraordinary volte face between the marriage
and the massacre
The Fragile Pacification of 1570
The first peace with the ‘oubliance’ clause (Clause 1, Potter, p. 118)
‘First, that the remembrance of all things past on both parts, for and
since the beginning of the troubles….shall remain as wholly quenched
and appeased, as things that never happened’
And ‘injunction to fraternity’ clause (Clause 2)
‘Forbidding also our subjects of what estate or quality woever they be,
that they renew not the memory thereof, to take hold, to revile, or
provoke other, by reproaching them with things past, to dispute, to
despise, to quarrel, to outrage or offend either other in word or in deed;
but to keep themselves in bounds, to live peaceably together as
brethren, friends and fellow-citizens, upon pain that the offenders be
punished as breakers of the peace’
The Consequences of the
Pacification of 1570
• The legacy of several years of intense violence not addressed, but stifled (Monluc –
Potter, p. 129)
• Noble feuds and factions officially ‘outlawed’ by royal law, and therefore not given a
means of being resolved (especially Guises vv Coligny: royal declaration of Colingy’s
innocence on 27 March 1572, recognised formally by some members of the Guises
family in May-June 1572)
• The issue of the protestant attacks upon the monarchy (as widely seen by catholics
after the ‘Surprise of Meaux’ swept under the carpet)
• Difficult problems of protestant war-debts, especially to German mercenaries.
Coligny became their spokesman, and arrived at court in October 1571
• Popular catholic opposition to the pacification, evident in incidents at Rouen, Lyon
and in Paris …
Was the pacification of 1570 partly responsible for the events of 1572?
The ‘Gastines Affair’
Philippe and Richard de Gastines were protestant
merchants in Paris, living at the corner of the rue des
Lombards and the rue St-Denis in Paris. Their house was
used for clandestine protestant worship during the third
civil war.
One of these meetings was discovered by the Paris
municipal authorities. In June 1569, the Gastines were
condemned to death and executed and their house
knocked down with explicit orders from the Parlement to
erect nothing in its place but a large stone pyramidal cross
in expiation of what had stood on the site.
Gaspard de Coligny demanded and obtained royal letters
of 7 October 1571 to have the cross and pyramid taken
down
The Parlement and municipal authorities refused to
comply. It was eventually agreed to remove it to the
cemetery of the Holy Innocents. But catholic crowds
frustrated the workmen and the event was interpreted as
part of a ‘bad omen’ for the future…
Jean de La Fosse, parish priest at
St-Germain de l’Auxerrois
November 1571… ‘Everyone was amazed at the string
of edicts which were quite to the disadvantage of the
Catholics….There was much talk of witches and
warlocks and it was said there were more than 30,000
at work, that the men were marked behind the ears and
the women on the thighs. Many were arrested amnd [it
was said that] even the king of the witches had been
taken and sent to the royal court, where he performed
his sorcery in the presence of the said lord [Coligny]’
[Potter, p. 132]
Matrimonial Politics – Cementing
Peace
• A recognised means of dynastic reconciliation in the sixteenth century
• Provided a vehicle for ‘oubliance’ of past differences – one in which ‘peace’
was cemented by ‘love’.
• The king’s marriage to Elizabeth of Austria had already been agreed, and took
place in November 1570, seen as linking the Valois and Habsburg dynasties
• Four potential bridegrooms:- Henri de Condé (Louis’ young son) and his cousin Henri de Bourbon,
king of Navarre
- Henri duke of Anjou and François duke of Alençon, the king’s
younger brothers
• Several potential brides, including Queen Elizabeth I, Marguerite de Valois
(the queen’s sister), and Mary of Cleves
The ‘Triumph of Winter’
Antoine Caron’s allegorical painting, possibly from 1571-2, part of a series depicting
royal ‘triumphs’ in which the ‘frosty’ and reluctant celebrations may reflect the
difficulties of making peace in the immediate aftermath of civil war
The ‘Triumph of Spring’
The complementary picture to the last, depicting the neo-platonic, magical charms
of love as ‘winter’ becomes ‘spring’. The bridegroom awaits in the temple of Diana
(centre) whilst the bride arrives (bottom right)
A Problematic Marriage
• Henri de Bourbon, king of Navarre and Marguerite de Valois: the union of the
Bourbon and Valois; the cementing of the largest fortune outside the crown with
the monarchy. BUT
-They were close cousins and it would require a papal dispensation
- Henri de Navarre’s mother was strongly opposed to the match (it was only
negotiated after her death in May 1571)
- it was a ‘mixed marriage’ across the confessions (also required papal approval)
- difficulties of ‘celebrating’ the marriage in these circumstances. Henri de
Navarre and his protestant retinue attended the marriage ceremony (but dressed
in ordinary attire) and then left the cathedral whilst Marguerite de Valois
celebrated a nuptial mass alone
- papal approval was not forthcoming and Catherine de Médicis gambled on a de
facto marriage forcing the papacy’s hand
Coligny’s Return to Court,
September 1571
Gaspard de Coligny returned to the court at Blois in September 1571 (extensively
described in Potter, 132-3).
Probable that Coligny exaggerated his influence over the king to satisfy his fellowprotestants
But evident that he had a clear programme for the reform of the kingdom (watered
down version of that presented in 1560-1 at the estates general of Pontoise?)
And that he believed that reform and pacification within France was best supported
by a foreign campaign to unite the realm and ‘channel’ the forces of violence
outside the kingdom.
Such a campaign had to be just and reasonable. Supporting the defeated Dutch
rebels would be both. A memorandum of June 1572, probably prepared by
Philippe Du Plessis Mornay for Coligny, was discussed at the royal council (Potter,
p. 134)
An Elaborate Game of Bluff
• From April 1571, Charles IX in extensive contact with Louis of Nassau and the
other exiles from the Netherlands, with plans for a conjoint invasion of the
Netherlands, possibly with English support
• These plans and contacts were known through spies’ reports in Madrid. But
Philip II’s ambassadors ‘affected’ to be ignorant of them because they did not
want to push the French monarchy into open support for the rebels
• Charles IX and his ministers continued to deny officially that there were any
contacts or plans, even though…
• Spain reinforced its troops levels in the Netherlands in the spring and summer
of 1572 in anticipation of such an invasion; and France did the same
• Unlikely that the French council committed itself to undertaking any invasion in
the summer of 1572. The opposition around the council was considerable
(Morvillier and Tavannes, Potter, pp. 133-135). Unlikely that Coligny was
assassinated on the order of Philip II?
Coligny’s Attempted Assassination,
22 August 1572
• The assassination was attempted in broad daylight
in a street close by the Louvre, as Coligny left the
royal council to return to his lodgings on foot
• It had clearly been carefully planned – horses
were ready for the get-away
• It failed to wound him fatally and he was able to
identify the house where the shot came from.
Members of his entourage went in hot pursuit of the
assassin but failed to catch up
• The assassin was quickly identified as Charles de
Louviers, seigneur de Maurevert, a nobleman from
the Hurepoix (region between Melun, Fontainebleau
and Provins). He had been brought up as a page in
the household of the duke of Guise, but joined
Condé’s army subsequently. He was already
implicated in two murders, of which the second was
for having killed one of Coligny’s lieutenants
Was Maurevert a hired
assassin? We do not
know
The King’s Reaction to the
Attempted Assassination of Coligny
‘The King, informed of everything, went to visit the Admiral after dinner, with
the Queen Mother [….] To honour him the more, the King ordered his
doctors and surgeons to care for him constantly, because he had wanted
none who were Catholics. They talked to him for a while and consoled him
and prayed him to come to the castle so that the King might more easily visit
him; but he, with gentle excuses, refused their offer […] The last words that
the Admiral spoke to the King were to demand justice for the attempted
assassination and to beg him strongly [….] that it was essential to start war
against Philip; otherwise it would not be long before he had civil war in this
kingdom more ferocious than ever, because he would no longer be able to
restrain the nobility in the business, so determined were they to fight.’
[Cavriana’s account of the events leading up to the Massacre of St
Bartholomew, 27 August 1572 – Potter, p. 139]
Interpreting The Events of 22-24
August 1572
•
•
•
•
•
Charles IX attempted to defuse the possible Huguenot reactions to the
assassination (personal visit; assurance of an investigation; offer of
surgeons; letters of explanation to the provinces; Huguenot nobles and high
command lodged for their safety close by, and in the Louvre)
Some of the Huguenot nobility seem to have discussed some revenge
killings for the attempted assassination (Cavriana: Potter, p. 139-140)
Some members of the royal council (Catherine de Médicis, Anjou, Guise,
Birague, etc) feared for the king’s safety and seem to have planned, at
some stage on 23 August in the course of several informal meetings, none
of them documented, a ‘tactical elimination’ of leading protestants. It is
probable that they used the arguments of the king’s safety, as well as the
possible influence of the Admiral upon the direction of foreign policy as
arguments in favour of such an extreme measure (Sassetti, p. 141)
There is no sign that the king gave orders for such an attack. But he did
tighten the security of the city (Potter, p. 142) and instructions were given by
Guise (Potter, p. 143) to undertake preparations which seem to have been a
part of such a strategic elimination.
It is clear from all quarters that the strategic elimination of the Huguenot
‘high command’ got out of hand…
Coligny’s Murder
Became written up in the
traditions of protestant
martyrology: a patient,
stoic, defenceless death
The Geography of the Massacre
Centres of Protestant
in Paris Nobility in Paris
The Louvre, where the king
was in residence, and
where some Huguenots
were in residence
The rue de Béthisy, where
Coligny was assassinated,
and close by where his
retinue was stationed
The Faubourg St-Germain,
where many Huguenot
nobles had temporary
residence for the nuptial
ceremonies
The Social Geography of Paris
and the Massacre
Centres of Massacre
The rue St-Denis – major
commercial articulation of the city
The bridges of the river
(blockaded by
barricades)
The Latin quarter (student
residences and university)
Towards the river among the
artisanal quarter of the
place de Greve
The Monarchy’s Implication in
the Massacre
• Orders issued in the crown’s name to carry the
massacre to the provinces – but contradictory
(Potter, p. 132)
• Monarchy implicated sufficiently in the events
leading up to the massacre for Charles IX to be
forced to claim the event ‘officially’ as carried out
under his orders for his own protection (Potter,
p. 145-6)
- The formal session of the Parlement of Paris
on 26 August , where ‘the king declared, with
grave words, some of the reasons which had led
him to carry out such a killing of the Huguenots’
- Royal declaration of 28 August that ‘what
was done was by his express command’.
A ‘State Crime’?
• The Monarchy no longer a Mediator, above Violence, but
a Monarchy of Violence
• But not a successful Coup d’Etat. Huguenot nobles in
the faubourg St-Germain escaped to the south and
reinforced their military position in strongholds
(Montauban, La Rochelle, Nimes, etc)
• And publish theoretical arguments for resistance to
established authority, many of which had already been
thought through before 1572
• But a significant event on the long-term evolution of
French protestantism. Many protestants converted to
catholicism out of fear of reprisal, especially in northern
France, where protestantism was marginalised after
1572