Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T15:18:41.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. Acton and the Massacre of St Bartholomew

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2011

H. Butterfield
H. Butterfield
Affiliation:
Professor of Modern History in the University
Get access

Extract

The earliest literature on the massacre of St Bartholomew, we are told, was dominated by the attempt of Henry, the Duke of Anjou, to secure the throne of Poland. Henry needed the support of the Protestants in that country—then a more considerable body than they have ever been since; and, as he had been one of the chief culprits in the massacre, the Huguenots were determined that the world should know the magnitude of the crime. He secured his election in 1573, but, in the face of the storm which was raised against him, he was supposed to have been seized with remorse in Cracow, and to have made a confession to his doctor, Miron—a narrative which we shall have to notice later.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Historical Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , 1953 , pp. 27 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wuttke, Heinrich, Zur Vorgeschichte der Bartholomäusnacht (Leipzig, 1879), p. 38Google Scholar; Segesser, Anton Philipp, Ludwig Pfyffer und seine Zeit, II (Berne, 1881), p. 169Google Scholar.

2 First published in Suite des Mémoires d'éstat de [Nicolas de Neufville de] Villeroy (Paris, 1623), pp. 68–89Google Scholar.

3 [Abbé Novi de Caveirac], Apologie de Louis XIV et de son Conseil sur la Révocation de l'Édit de Nantes…avec une Dissertation sur la journée de S. Barthélemi (1758). Caveirac asserts that there is no firm authority for the idea of premeditation, and that the Memoirs of Tavannes, those of Marguerite de Valois, and the confession made by the Due d'Anjou to Miron tell against that hypothesis.

Acton's interest in the history of the historiography of the massacre hardly seems to have extended to the eighteenth century and, though he mentions Caveirac, he does not allude to the French Jesuit, Father G. Daniel, whose Histoire de France depuis l'Établissement de la Monarchie Françoise dans les Gaules, originally published in 1713, had appeared in 1755, with supplementary notes and observations by Henri Griffet. Succeeding writers, including Caveirac himself and Griffet, show the significance of this republication. Daniel, though inclining to the belief in premeditation, had thrown doubts on the idea of a conspiracy at Bayonne and had said that after the attempt on Coligny ‘cet emportement des chefs des huguenots, leurs assemblées…et le tumulte que cet evénément causoit…déterminèrent la reine à n'en pas demeurer là. Elle alia trouver le roi… dit qu'il s'agissait de sa couronne et de sa vie…que les huguenots se préparaient à se venger sur le due de Guise…’ Daniel's editor adds; ‘Le P. Daniel paroit faire un grand fonds sur l'autorité des Mémoires de M. de Tavannes et sur l'entretien du due d'Anjou avec Miron.’ He notes that ‘le nouvel éditeur du Journal de l'Étoile n'a pas fait difficulté d'avancer comme une chose certaine, que le massacre ne fut prémédité que 24 heures avant son exécution’. He asks why, if a massacre was already planned, there should have been an initial attack on Coligny alone—an attack which, if it had succeeded, would have dispersed the Huguenots then assembled in Paris.

Acton does not mention Anquetil, Louis-Pierre, L'Esprit de la Ligue ou Histoire Politique des Troubles de la France pendant les XVI & XVII siécles, II (Paris, 1767)Google Scholar. On p. 13 Anquetil says: ‘Les Mémoires du temps, faits par les personnes les mieux instruites, tels que ceux de Brantôme, de la Reine Marguerite, de Cheverny, de Villeroy, de Castelnau, surtout de Tavannes, d'après lesquels se sont décidés Dupleix, Le Laboureur, l'auteur des Commentaires, et les meilleurs historiens, portent expressément deux choses, i. que Charles ne se détermina au massacre qu'après la blessure de l'amiral; 2. qu'il n'eut d'abord dessein d'y comprendre que quelques chefs.’

The above authors illustrate the fact that the reliability of the chief sets of Memoirs was the main issue in the eighteenth century: and Acton was chiefly interested in the Jesuit Father, Griffet, Henri, who in his Traité des différentes sortes de Preuves qui servent à établir la vérité de l'histoire (Liège, 1769), p. 61Google Scholar, shows the interest which Tavannes, Marguerite de Valois and Miron must have had in promulgating a perversion of the truth. Acton regretted that this work, ‘reprinted in 1838, has remained unnoticed by later historians’. Incidentally, Griffet gives a hint of the possible source of the argument of Anquetil, quoted in the text above, when he reproduces a passage from Brantôme attacking the prevalent assumption that ‘les desseins des Princes sont toujours conduits de longue main, et toujours prémédités, quoi qu'ils soient souvent les effets subits d'une conjoncture tout-à-fait imprévué’.

Acton makes no mention of a curious work by Gabriel Brizard, Du Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemi, et de l'influence des étrangers en France durant la Ligue…(Première Partie, Paris, Jan. 1790), which regards the crime as ‘premedite’ de longue main’, but is concerned chiefly to show that the culprits were foreigners, while the French were only the victims. Concerning the attack on Caveirac Brizard writes; ‘Un cri général s'est élevé contre l'imprudent écrivain qui, de nos jours, a tenté, non d'en faire l'apologie, comme on l'a cru faussement, mais d'en discuter les causes…. On s'est indigné qu'il n'en parlât que pour en atténuer l'horreur…. Un tel homme a été justement flétri par l'opinion publique.’

4 C[ambridge] U[niversity] L[ibrary], Add. 4863. Amongst the other papers in this packet are a number of notes which Acton made in preparation for his short history of the historiography of the massacre. They include repeated summaries of the opinions of historians on the question of premeditation, and repeated notes or queries concerning the first appearance of particular pieces of evidence. As in many other sets of notes in the C.U.L., we also find the record (occasionally in pencil) of the way Acton was thinking out his ideas on the subject, or giving initial formulation to his arguments. Some examples are given in n. 18, n. 20, n. 32 and n. 40 below. Add. 5531 is a notebook in which Acton can be seen similarly revolving the question of Pius V and the murder of Elizabeth, reasoning out the whole case and attempting to establish his attitude to the affair. These documents throw an interesting light on the genesis and development of his historical ideas. Some of the references in Add. 4863 make it clear that these notes on the massacre of St Bartholomew, and the subsequent sketch, are later than Acton's own publications on this theme, and represent a renewed attempt to take stock of the whole subject shortly after 1873. At a later date again, as will be seen below, he re-traversed the ground and revised his view of the massacre (see p. 47 below). The Acton collection in the C.U.L. also comprises large numbers of the transcripts of documents relating to the massacre which he had procured at different times.

5 Lingard, John, History of England, v (1823), pp. 334–5Google Scholar, 646–50, reviewed by John Allen in Edinburgh Review, June 1826; Lingard, J., A Vindication of Certain Passages in the fourth and fifth volumes of the History of England (1826)Google Scholar; Allen, J., Reply to Dr Lingard's Vindication in a letter to Francis Jeff ray, Esq. (2nd ed. 1827)Google Scholar. For a survey of the controversy, see Westminster Review, Jan. 1827.

6 Audin, Jean Marie Vincent, Histoire de la Saint Barthilémy (Paris, 1826)Google Scholar; Baptiste Honoré Capefigue, Raymond, Histoire de la réforme, de la Ligue, et du règne de Henri IV, vol. iii (Paris, 1834), pp. 1–272Google Scholar.

7 von Raumer, Friedrich, Briefe aus Paris zur Erläuterung der Geschichte des sechzehnten und siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, part I (Leipzig, 1831), pp. 290–6Google Scholar.

8 ‘After the close of his public life, in 1831’, says Acton in the sketch, ‘[Chateaubriand] advertised a volume which was to contain [the despatches], and in which he promised to vindicate Religion and Monarchy. This pledge could not be redeemed; but, at the request of Sismondi, Chateaubriand communicated to Sir James Mackintosh certain extracts.’

9 van Prinsterer, Groen, Archives ou Correspondance inédite de la Maison d'Orange-Nassau, 1st Series, iii (Leyden, 1836)Google Scholar, e.g. pp. 496–500.

10 Alberi, Eugenio, Vita di Caterina de' Medici (Firenze, 1838)Google Scholar; Tommaseo, Niccolo, Relations des ambassadeurs vénitiens sur les affaires de France au XVIe siècle (2 vols. Paris, 1838)Google Scholar.

11 Acton writes: ‘Among the forgeries produced by the wish to magnify the guilt of the culprits, were three letters purporting to have been severally written by Pelleve’ to Lorraine, by Catharine to Strozzi, and by Thomasseau to Guise. Two of these had been long detected. But the third remained, and was, if genuine, enough to prove that the murders in the provinces had been organised for many days. In 1843 Falloux demonstrated that the letter of Thomasseau is a fabrication.’ See de Falloux, Le comte, ‘La Saint-Barthélemy’ (Congrès scientifique de France à Angers, 1843) in Études et Souvenirs (Paris, 1885), pp. 38ffGoogle Scholar.

The sketch continues; ‘A paper is extant which describes a plan formed by the Catholic leaders in 1562 for a more atrocious slaughter than that which was executed ten years later. Secousse, who published it in 17, [sic] declined to commit his high critical reputation by declaring it genuine. A copy has been found among the papers of the duke of Guise: and Capefigue affirms that he had seen the original bearing autograph signatures. The collection designated by Capefigue has been twice examined, and his statement is not confirmed.’

12 Gachard, Louis Prosper, Correspondence de Philippe II sur Us affaires des Pays-Bas, ii (Brussels, 1851)Google Scholar.

13 Timotheus, Ludwig, von Spittler, Freiherr, Entwurf der Geschichte der europäischen Staaten (2nd impression, 2 vols. 1808), pp. 234–5Google Scholar.

14 von Ranke, Leopold, Historisch-Politische Zeitschrift, ii (1835), pp. 581–605Google Scholar (review of Capefigue, op. cit.); Die römischen Päpste…, ii (Berlin, 1836), p. 6Google Scholar; Französische Geschichte, 1 (Hamburg, 1852), pp. 296–333Google Scholar.

15 Soldan, Wilhelm Gottlieb, ‘Frankreich und die Bartholomäusnacht’, in Historisches Taschenbuch, xxv (Leipzig, 1854), pp. 75–241Google Scholar.

16 The Chronicle, 15 Feb. 1868, p. 158.

17 For the manuscript work of Döllinger and Acton at this time, see MS. notes in C.U.L. Add. 4903, 4905, 4909, 5609: also letters of 1866 from Acton to Simpson, now at Downside Abbey, two of which are printed in the Cambridge Historical Journal, 1950, pp. 99–101. Döllinger's attitude to persecution is discussed in notes in Add. 4904, 4905, 4908, 4909. In Add. 5004 Acton gives some general views of his own on the same topic. In Add. 4904 is a note: ‘D[öllinger] thought persecution an evil, not a crime.’ Add. 4908: ‘It is more an intellectual error.’ In Add. 4908 and 4909 Acton points out that Döllinger never gave his mind to the theory and history of persecution until 1864. In Add. 4904 he writes: ‘D.'s scheme of writing on St Bartholomew entertained for a moment. This would have been a step beyond his study of the Inquisition [1867].’ In Add. 4908 we read: ‘St Bartholomew. It would have led him into new fields.… He recoiled from the bloodshed.’ In Add. 4909 he says: ‘The decisive fact of D.'s life, separating one half from the other, was the question of forgeries. He began in 1862….’

18 At least he imputed this way of thinking to the historians of the ‘Catholic Reaction’, as in the following note from Add. 4863:

‘If no premeditation, no complicity.

‘It became a Catholic interest to determine that it was a sudden decision.

‘Not enough to show that it was not entirely decided.

‘That would not show that there was no complicity.

‘Therefore they were willing to show that it [the massacre] was not even discussed or proposed.’

Another note, under the heading ‘Catholic Reaction’, runs:

‘…All turned on premeditation. If none, Rome no accomplice. Denied by Ranke, Capefigue, Audin, Lingard, Alberi, Michelet, Falloux, Soldan….”

19 Lord Acton, review of White, Henry, The Massacre of St Bartholomew (1868)Google Scholar, in The Chronicle, 15 Feb. 1868, pp. 158–60; ‘The Massacre of St Bartholomew’ in North British Review, Oct. 1869, pp. 30–70, reprinted in History of Freedom, pp. 101–49; review of Gar, Tommaso, La Strage di San Bartolomeo…con introduzione ed aggiunta di documenti inediti tratti dall’ archivio generale di Venezia (Venice, 1870)Google Scholar, in North British Review, 1870–1, pp. 561–2.

20 E.g. a note in Add. 4863: ‘These results eagerly taken advantage of, exaggerated and caricatured in the interest of religion—of the Pope and King.’

21 See n. 2 above. Amongst the notes in C.U.L. Add. 4863 is a list of over twenty nineteenth-century historians who had accepted Miron. Ranke is included in the list, but he had later expressed his doubts.

22 Acton, History of Freedom, pp. 116–22.

23 Baumgarten, Hermann, Vor der Bartholomäusnacht (Strassburg, 1882)Google Scholar, which on p. ix affirms ‘es ist sehr viel lehrreicher, sich mit dem Kampf der Europa beherrschenden Mächte in dieser Zeit zu beschäftigen, als immer nur an dem blutigen Räthsel der Bartholomäusnacht herum zu pflücken’. On this point see also von Bezold's, Friedrich review of Baumgarten in Historische Zeitschrift, xlvii (1882), p. 560Google Scholar. In Historisch-Politische Zeitschrift, ii (1835), p. 591Google Scholar, Ranke had already declared that the relations between the European states in the period before the massacre were inconsistent with the old view of premeditation.

24 E.g. H. Baumgarten, op. cit. p. 255, echoing the view of the Venetian ambassador, Cavalli.

25 Georges Gandy, ‘La Saint-Barthélemy, ses Origines, son vrai Caractère, ses Suites'. This article makes a very considerable survey of the previous literature, discusses the value of Miron, notes the work of Griffet, and examines the evidence of Salviati.

26 H. Baumgarten, op. cit. p. 131. Cf. Ludwig, Freiherr von Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, viii, p. 383 n. Bonelli had written: ‘con alcuni particolari ch'io porto, dei quali ragguagliero nostro Signore a bocca, posso dire di non partirmo affato mal expedita’. On the controversy concerning these words see Pastor, op. cit. viii, pp. 381–6.

27 Wuttke, Heinrich, Zur Vorgeschichte der Bartholomäusnacht (Leipzig, 1879)Google Scholar. This work also makes a full survey of t he existing literature.

28 In four articles in the Journal des Savants, 1871, Maury, reviewing H. White, op. cit., had admitted that the French court might have had a treacherous arrière-pensée in the peace of 1570, but declared that White had proved the case against premeditation in 1572, and declined to accept the essential arguments of Acton. In the same journal, March 1889, pp. 254–64, Maury, in an article entitled ‘Nouvelles Recherches sur la Saint-Barthélemy’, changed his opinion, however, and in particular he declared that the Miron account had lost all value since the work of Bordier. See Loiseleur, Jules, ‘Les Nouvelles Controverses sur la Saint-Barthélemy’, Revue Historique, xv (1881), pp. 82–109Google Scholar. Cf. Loiseleur, Jules, Trois Énigmes Historiques (1882), p. 3Google Scholar. Bagnenault, G. de Puchesse produced a criticism of Bordier in ‘La Préméditation de la Saint-Barthélemy’, Revue des Questions Historiques (1882), pp. 372–9Google Scholar.

29 Revue Historique, xv (1881), p. 108Google Scholar n. The editors of this review declare that they do not believe in a long-prepared plan but admit ‘une préméditation générale’. Also in 1879 appeared Comte Hector de la Ferrière, Le XVI siècle et les Valois, and Marie Camille Alfred, Vicomte de Meaux, Les Luttes religieuses en France au 16me siècle.

30 H. Baumgarten, op. cit.; Philippson, Martin, Westeuropa im Zeitalter von Philip II, Elizabeth und Henri IV (Berlin, 1882)Google Scholar, e.g. p. 268; de la Ferrière, H., Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, iv, 1570–4 (1891)Google Scholar, e.g. pp. xxx–lxxviii, and La Saint-Barthélemy (Paris, 1892)Google Scholar; Philippson, Martin, ‘Die Römische Curie und die Bartholomäusnacht’, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, vii (1892), pp. 108–37Google Scholar.

31 Platzhoff, Walter, Die Theorie von der Mordbefugnis der Obrigkeit im XVI Jahrhundert, Historische Studien, 54 (Berlin, 1906)Google Scholar.

32 C.U.L. Add. 4863 : ‘The indifference and coldness of Europe may be partly explained.

‘The barbarity and the folly of criminal jurisdiction had reached their highest point.

‘Men fancied that it was their duty to punish offences against God as well as against man, and as crimes were liberally punished with death a punishment severer than death was requisite to indicate the greater atrocity of crimes against the honour of God.

‘No sufferings could be too great for them and as they were defending God, they might rely that He would distinguish innocence from guilt.

‘The idea on which ordeals were founded survived in the treatment of such things. And so it happened that the most frightful penalties were those which were inflicted with the least compunction and the least care.’

33 Salviati had written: ‘Se l'archibugiata ammazzava subito l'armiraglio, non mi risolvo a credere che se fussi fatto tanto a un pezzo.’ Theiner, Augustin, Annales Ecclesiastici, 1 (Rome, 1856), p. 329Google Scholar. Acton quotes another passage from this page and this despatch in History of Freedom, p. 111, n. 3.

34 In Add. 5005, Acton at a later date copied out this reproof, Rusticucci to Salviati, 8 Sept. 1572, from Philippson, Martin, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, vii (1892), p. 132–3Google Scholar.

35 Victor Martin, op. cit. pp. 105–7; M. Philippson, ‘Die Römische Curie…’, p. 133.

36 On this controversy see also L. Pastor, op. cit. ix, p. 359 n., and Mariéjol, Jean-H., Catherine de Médicis (3rd ed. Paris, 1922), p. 13Google Scholar

37 Revue Historique, ci (1909), pp. 316–26, Henri Monod, ‘La version du due d'Anjou sur la Saint-Barthélemy’.

38 P. 161.

39 Vol. iii, pp. 19–20.

40 C.U.L. Add. 5586. In Add. 4863 and Add. 5004 are further notes which show Acton working out his conclusions.

41 C.U.L. Add. 5005.

42 Transcript in Add. 4843, from Bulletin de l'Académie de Bruxelles, xvi (1849). In later notes of Acton, Add. 5005, the same passage is transcribed by Acton from Comte H. de la Ferrière, Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, iv, p. cxv.