Chapter LXX: Book XXXVII: , 32; Anquetil, I, 213 (1)

[904] Collection Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 7, July 18, 1564.

[905] De Thou, IV, Book XXXVII, 32.

[906] A printed copy of this important dispatch, entitled “Coppie d’une lettre du sieur d’Aumale au sieur marquis d’Elbœuf son frère, sur l’association qu’ils delibèrent faire contre la maison de Montmorency” (February 27, 1565), is to be found in the Bib. Nat., L _b._ 33: 172. It evidently was circulated as a political pamphlet by the Huguenots. But where is the original? Portions of it are as follows: “Mon frère ... j’ay receu de vostre homme la lettre que m’avez escripte.... J’en ay par plusieurs fois cy devant escript à Messieurs de Montpensier, d’Estampes, Cehavigny: par où ils auroyent bien peu juger la volonté que j’ay tousjours lue de nous venger, et combien je desirerois l’association que vous dites (_verso_) prevoyant assez combien elle estoit necessaire non seulement pour nous, mais aussi pour tous les gens de bien à qui l’on en veult plus que jamais.

“Et pour ceste cause, mon frere, je trouverais merveilleusement bon que les dicts Sieurs y voulsissent entendre, laissant les villes, d’autant qu’il n’y a nulle asseurance en peuple, comme je l’ay dernièrement encore cogneut. Mais avec la Noblesse, de ma part je suis tout resolu et prest, et n’y veux espargner aucune chose, et le plustost sera le meilleur. Qui me fait vous prier, de regarder et en bien adviser tous parensemble, et mesmes avec le seigneur de Montpensier, et de m’en mander ce que vous aurez deliberé, à fin que par là je resolue avec les Seigneurs et Noblesse qui sont de deça et mes Gouverneurs, qui feront tout ce que je vouldray.

“Au demeurant, vous avez bien entendu le nombre de Chevaliers de l’Ordre qui ont esté faicts, qui sont bien pres de trente ou plus, dont monsieur de Brion en est des premiers. Aussi des preparatifs que lon fuit à la Court pour aller à Bayonne recevoir festoyer la Roine d’Espaigne.”

[907] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 80-86. I have used the seventeenth-century translation of Cotton, 274, 275, which preserves something of the spirit of the original. De Thou, never having seen the document in question, expresses his doubt of Montluc’s veracity in the matter, and argues the improbability of the King’s having followed Montluc’s advice on the ground that the crown had condemned all secret associations as destructive of domestic tranquillity. “Why should the King make a league with his subjects?” asks De Thou. “Far from deriving any advantage from it, would it not diminish his authority? Would the King not incite his subjects to do exactly what he wanted to avoid, and by his own example accustom them to town factions; to foment and support parties in the kingdom?”—De Thou, IV, Book XXXVII, 33. Unfortunately for the truth of De Thou’s hypothesis, the facts are the other way, for there is documentary proof that Charles IX followed out Montluc’s suggestion, and sent the declaration to all his officers requesting their adherence to it. The baron de Ruble discovered the proof in F. Fr. 20,461, fol. 58. See his edition of Montluc, III, 86, note; cf. D’Aubigné, II, 218, and n. 6.

[908] The credit of having made this important discovery is due to the baron de Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 317-26, 329, 330, 346, 347, 362, 363. But it was Forneron who showed the world the magnitude of Montluc’s treason (_Hist. de Philippe II_, I, 293-330). Suspicion of Montluc’s course, however, prevailed in his own day. He was charged with having agreed to deliver over the province of Guyenne to Philip II in 1570 and issued a cartel against his adversaries denying that he had any intelligence with Spain. See Appendix VIII.

[909] D’Andelot’s appointment to this post created intense feeling among the Catholic officers. Strozzi, Brissac, and Charry openly refused to obey him (D’Aubigné, II, 207; Brantôme, V, 341).

[910] Forneron, I, 294, n. 3.

[911] Montluc, ed. De Ruble, IV, Introd., ix.

[912] It will be observed that Montluc independently had come to the same conclusion as Granvella.

[913] Montluc, ed. De Ruble, IV, 317-26, February 8, 1564.

[914] Forneron, I, 330. D’Aubigné, II, 294, wrongly ascribes this plot to the Jesuits. The traditional Protestant account, attributed to Calignon, chancellor of Navarre, is printed in _Mém. du duc de Nevers_, II, 579; also in _Mém. de Villeroy_. The account in _Arch. cur._, VI, 281, is much colored. Catholic historians have denied the existence of such a plot, e. g., the abbé Garnier in _Mém. de l’Acad. des inscrip._ (1787), Vol. L, 722. But since the publication of Montluc’s _Correspondance_ there is no doubt of it.

[915] Forneron, I, 303-6. Cabie, _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 483, gives the text of the ambassador’s letter to Catherine, and his note of thanks to the queen’s embroiderer who divulged the plot.

[916] D’Aubigné, II, 204, 205; _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 669. Charles IX’s letter of November 30, 1563, to St. Sulpice gives some details of the process (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 186, 187).

[917] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 119, 120. Her letter to her daughter in Spain, not in the correspondence, which M. Cabie cites in _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 208, displays real courage. Charles IX said he could not abandon Jeanne d’Albret “sans être vu déserter de ses plus proches parents” (_ibid._, 247). The instructions to Lansac, who was sent to Spain to protest in the name of France against the papal action, show fine scorn (_ibid._, 224).

[918] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 327, note.

[919] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 228: “Réponse de Philippe II au sr. de Lansac en sa première audience, 18 fev. 1565.”

[920] _Ibid._, 247.

[921] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 5.

[922] Letter to St. Sulpice, February 10, 1563, _ibid._, 115.

[923] _Ibid._, 135.

[924] Pius IV was so perplexed that he tried to avoid pronouncing in the matter. “On avait décidé, à la dernière fête de St. Pierre, de supprimer cette cérémonie, afin de n’offenser personne.”—Charles IX to St. Sulpice, July 24, 1563, _ibid._, 141.

[925] Du Ferrier, French ambassador at Venice to St. Sulpice, April 12, 1564, _ibid._, 252.

[926] Cf. the report of the conversation between Archbishop Cispontin, the papal secretary, and D’Oysel (_ibid._, 273, July, 1564).

[927] “Instructions données par Charles IX à L’Aubespine le jeune, envoyé en Espagne,” _ibid._, 277, June 24, 1564.

[928] _Ibid._, 279, 281, 282, 299. “It is an error to regard, as most historians do, the course of the relations of Philip II to the see of Rome as a single consistent development, for the earlier part of his reign was dominated by a principle utterly different from that which inspired the latter. In the sixties and early seventies the Spanish king devoted himself primarily to the maintenance of the principles of the counter-Reformation; he abandoned political advantage in the interest of the faith, united with the ancient foes of his house for the suppression of heresy, dedicated himself and his people to the cause of Catholicism.... But in the later seventies there came a change. The spirit of the counter-Reformation was waning in France: the old political lines of cleavage had begun to reappear; Philip began to discover that he was draining his land to the dregs in the interests of a foreign power who offered him no reciprocal advantages, and reluctantly exchanged his earlier attitude of abject devotion to the interests of the church for the more patriotic one of solicitude for the welfare of Spain.... Viewed from the Spanish standpoint, the story of this long development is a tragic but familiar one—reckless national sacrifice for the sake of an antiquated ideal, exhaustion in the interests of a foreign power, which uses and casts aside but never reciprocates. But it adds one more to the already long list of favorable revisions of the older and more hostile verdicts on the Spanish monarch. Philip’s attitude toward the papacy, though not always wise or statesmanlike, was at least far more honorable and loyal to the church than it is usually represented (as, for instance, by Philippson): the first part of his reign is marked by his single-hearted devotion to the cause of Rome, and even at the last that devotion does not falter, though the interests of his country forced him to adopt a more national policy toward the papacy than that with which he had begun.”—R. B. Merriman, Review of Herre, _Papsttum und Papstwahl im Zeitalter Philipps II_ (Leipzig, 1907), in _American Historical Review_, October, 1908, pp. 117, 118.

[929] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 177, July 30, 1564; _R. Q. H._, 1869, p. 403.

[930] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 669.

[931] Granvella said as much to Philip II, July 14, 1563. See _Papiers d’état du card. de Granvelle_, VII, 124; cf. Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 277 (Philip II to Alva, December 14, 1563).

[932] Granvella to Perez, August 6, 1563, _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 177.

[933] _Ibid._, 231.

[934] _Ibid._, 262.

[935] See Paillard, _Histoire des troubles de Valenciennes_, 1560-67.

[936] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 270.

[937] For proof see _ibid._, 55, 56, and note.

[938] “Les Huguenots de France sollicitent continuellement ceulx des Pays-Bas pour se révolter,” writes Granvella to the Emperor on June 3, 1564 (_ibid._, 18).

[939] _Ibid._, 99; cf. 104, note.

[940] _Ibid._, 23, 393; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 5, 275, 280, 284, 300, 305; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 197_s_.

[941] “Si cela de la religion succède bien en France, les affaires vauldront de mieulx.”—_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 152, July 15, 1564.

[942] The presence of many Belgian students at the French universities undoubtedly contributed to this sympathy. See Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 372.

[943] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 390, 527, 550, 556, 593.

[944] _Ibid._, VII, 281.

[945] The counselor d’Assonleville wrote to Cardinal Granvella after the peace of Troyes, “Adieu, Callais! combien qu’elle nous duiroit bien hors de mains des François!”—Poulet, I, 570.

[946] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 191, 194, 209, 221. Each state appointed a commission in 1563 to adjust this difficulty and other border complications on the edge of Artois and Luxembourg (for instances, see _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 224, 227, 228, 240, 254), whose conferences were prolonged through the years 1564-65. See the long note in Gachard, _Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 270.

In Collection Godefroy, XCIV, No. 16, will be found a “sommaire de la négociation de Calais, entre le président Séguier et le conseiller du Faur, députés de Charles IX, et les ambassadeurs de Philippe II;” original, signed by Séguier and Du Faur. In the same collection, XCVI, No. 6, is a delimitation treaty pertaining to the Picard frontier, signed by Harlay and Du Drac, at Gravelines, December 29, 1565. Charles IX refused to ratify it.

[947] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 18.

[948] “Un eslavon tan importante desta cadena.”—_Ibid._, VII, 215.

[949] For Granvella’s opinion of the demand for the Estates-General, see his letter to Philip II, April 18, 1564 (_ibid._, 492-94).

[950] _Ibid._, 294, note, and especially 495-97; cf. _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 188, 193.

[951] “Non admettre à couleur de la peste.”—Granvella to the duchess of Parma, _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 411.

[952] This was a mere threat, however, as such a course would have injured France as much as the Netherlands.

[953] See the letter of the president Viglius to Granvella, April 17, 1564, in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 476; cf. 481. On this whole question, so far as England is concerned see Brugmans, _England en de Nederland in de eerste Jaren von Elizabeth’s regeering (1558-67)_, Groningen, 1892; cf. _English Historical Review_, VIII, 358-60.

[954] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 496, 497. Cf. the observation of Assonleville in a letter to Granvella, Poulet, I, 570. The cardinal’s prophecy was partially fulfilled (_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 40, 41).

[955] “Qui est autant que couper la gorge aux marchands.”—“Mémoire envoyé pour le roi de France à St. Sulpice,” January, 1564, in _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 210.

[956] See “Note du Ministère de France en réponse aux griefs presentés par l’ambassadeur d’Espagne” in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 584-86. Other references to this commercial matter are in VII, 62, 164, 375, 411, 476, 481, 495-97, 584, 668; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 175, 181, 188, 191, 193, 194, 200, 206, 209, 210, 213, 217, 221, 224, 304, 350, 351; _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 6-15, 514, 515; Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 244, 246, 247; Poulet, I, 567, and n. 2. There is a memoir on the mission of Assonleville to England, April-June 6, 1563, in the _Bulletin de la commission royale d’histoire_, sér. III, I, 456 ff.

Undoubtedly Spain’s harsh commercial policy toward France was also influenced in part by jealousy of the commercial relations of France and England, for the treaty of Troyes established freedom of trade between the two nations. For the great importance of this treaty in the history of commerce see De Ruble, _Le traité de Cateau-Cambrésis_, 193-95.

[957] St. Sulpice sent this important information in a letter of January 22, 1565 (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 338).

[958] _Ibid._, 366. Catherine de Medici pushed her insistence perilously far, asserting that Alava, the Spanish ambassador in France, had intimated that objection would not be made to the presence of the prince of Condé, since his exclusion might endanger the peace. Philip II promptly declared that if Alava had made Catherine believe so, he had acted in violation of instructions. “Mémoire envoyé à Catherine sur les réponses du roi catholique,” May 7, 1564, in _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 375.

[959] Egmont passed through Bordeaux on his way to Spain while the court was there (_R. Q. H._, XXIV, 479).

[960] The reasons for the selection of Bayonne are set forth in _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 472.

[961] “Les lenteurs ... qui sont habituelles en Espagne.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 363.

[962] F. Fr. 20,647, fol. 11. For other details of the preliminaries of Bayonne, see _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 335-38, 347, 350, 351, 353, 354, 357-60, 362, 363, 366, 374-78, 382.

[963] Cf. _Recueil des choses notables qui ont esté faites à Bayonne Paris_, 1566; and the _Mémoires de Marguerite de Navarre_, Book I.

[964] See De Thou, Book XXVII; Mathieu, _Histoire de France_, I, 283; La Popelinière, Book XI, 8. The prince of Orange and William of Hesse both believed that the massacre of St. Bartholomew was concerted at Bayonne (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 507; IV, 108).

[965] Some of the literature upon this famous interview is as follows: E. Marcks, _Die Zusammenkunft von Bayonne: Das französ. Staatsleben u. Spanien in d. J. 1563-67_, Strassburg, 1889; Combes, _L’entrevue de Bayonne de 1565_, Paris, 1882; Maury, in _Journal des savants_, 1871; Loiseleur _La St. Barthelémy_, Paris, 1883; Lettenhove, _La conférence de Bayonne_, 1883; La Ferrière, _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 457, and the same in _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd.; Philippson, _L’Athénæum belge_, July 1, 1882; De Croze, _Les Guises, les Valois et Philippe II_; Boutaric, _La Saint Barthélemy, d’après les archives du Vatican_ (_Bib. de l’Ecole des Chartes_, sér. V, III, 1); Raumer, _Frankreich und die Bartholomäusnacht_, Leipzig, 1854; Wuttke, _Zur Vorgeschichte der Bartholomäusnacht_; Soldan, _La Saint Barthélemy_ (French trans.), 1854.

[966] _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 483, and n. 2.

[967] For Alva’s judgment on the government of France see _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 276; cf. _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 341-43.

[968] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 523; _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 492-512, n. 4. Alva frankly said that he wished the constable were gone with the rest—“el condestable que valierá mas que faltára como los otros.”—_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 277.

[969] The duke of Montpensier was a notoriously bigoted Catholic. The Venetian ambassador said of him: “Il quale è tenuto più atto a governare un monasterio di frati che a comandare ad eserciti.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 155.

[970] _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 485. Montluc put a memoir in Alva’s hands which proposed an alliance between the crowns of France and Spain for the purpose of crushing the Protestants in France. In event of the French king’s refusal to become a party to this alliance, Montluc outlined the means of defense which Philip II would have to resort to. This memoir is published by the baron de Ruble in _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 23 ff. In this striking document the veteran soldier, after setting forth his favorite thesis that French Calvinism was antimonarchical in its nature, makes a survey of the religious state of the provinces. He concludes that while Protestantism was rampant everywhere in France, in five-sixths of the country the Catholics were superior. The place of great danger is Guyenne. The mutual safety of France and Spain requires the subjugation of this province. France cannot or will not do this alone (cf. _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 342, n. 3; 343, n. 4). It remains, therefore, for the king of Spain to do so. This is the historical argument for all of Montluc’s subsequent course of treason with Philip II.

[971] This has been triumphantly proved by Count Hector de la Ferrière, who has shown that M. Combes, _L’Entrevue de Bayonne de 1565 et la question de St. Barthélemy d’après les archives de Simancas_, Paris, 1881, has mistranslated the very documents upon which he relied (_R. Q. H._, _XXXIV_, 511 ff.).

[972] Pius V was elected pope January 17, 1566 (see Hilliger, _Die Wahl Pius V zum Päpste_, 1907). He had been grand inquisitor before his elevation, and imparted a ferocious zeal to the holy office (see Bertelotti, _Martiri di Libero Pensero e Vittime della Sta. Inquisizione nei Secoli, XVI, XVII, e XVIII_, Rome, 1892). The violence of his character and his bigotry led to his committing several acts injurious to the Catholic cause, but it was due to him that the Spanish, Venetian, and papal fleets defeated the Turks at Lepanto. He wrote on March 28, 1569 to Catherine de Medici: “Si Votre Majesté continue, comme elle a fait constamment, dans la rectitude de son âme? et dans la simplicité de son cœur, à ne chercher que l’honneur de Dieu toutpuissent, et à combattre ouvertement et ardemment les ennemis de la religion catholique, _jusqu’à ce qu’ils soient tous massacrés_ (ad internecionem usque), qu’elle soit assurée que le secours divin ne lui manquera jamais, et que Dieu lui préparera, ainsi qu’au roi, son fils, de plus grandes victoires: ce n’est que par _l’extermination entière_ des hérétiques (deletis omnibus haeritics) que le roi pourra rendre à ce noble royaume l’ancien culte de la religion catholique.”—Potter, _Pie V_, 35; letter of the Pope to Catherine de Medici, March 28, 1569. The original Latin version of this letter, the salient words of which are in parentheses above, is in _Epistola SS. Pii V_, ed. Gouban, III, 154, Antwerp, 1640. The editor was secretary to the marquis de Castel-Rodrigio, ambassador of Philip IV to the Holy See. An abridged edition was published by Potter, _Lettres de St. Pie V sur les affaires religieuses de son temps en France_, Paris, 1826. The letter is one of congratulation written to Catherine de Medici upon the Catholic victory of Jarnac and the death of the prince of Condé. (Cf. the letter of April 13, 1569, on p. 156 to the same effect.) Nevertheless, even the Pope regarded the total destruction of the French Protestants as a result more devoutly to be wished for than practicable. Pope Pius V, however, was not the first advocate of destruction, for as early as 1556 François Lepicart gave the same advice to Henry II: “Le roy devroit pour un temps contrefaire le luthérien parmi eux [the Protestants], afin que, prenant de là occasion de s’assembler hautement partout, on pût faire main-basse sur eux tous, et en purger une bonne fois le royaume.”—_Bayle’s Dictionary_, art. “Rose.”

The doctrine of assassination for heresy originally proceeded from the mediaeval church, in which it can be traced back as far as the beginning of the Crusades. Urban II asserted that it was not murder to kill an excommunicated person, provided it was done from religious zeal. (“Non enim eos homicidas arbitramur quod adversus excommunicatos zelo catholicae matris ardentes, eorum quoslibet trucidasse contigerit.”—Migne, _Epistolae Urbani_, CLI, No. 122; Mansi, XX, 713; the same words are used by Ivo of Chartres, X, 331, and by Gratian in the _Decretum_ [causa 32, quaestio 2, canon: _De neptis_].) The passage stands in the revised edition, to which Gregory XIII prefixed the injunction that nothing should be omitted, and the gloss gives the following paraphrase: “Non putamus eos esse homicidas qui zelo justitiae eos occiderunt.”

In 1208 Innocent III proscribed the count of Toulouse (Teulet, _Trésor des Chartes_, I, 316), and in the same pontificate the Fourth Lateran Council declared that the Pope might depose anyone who neglected the duty of exterminating heresy and might bestow his state on others (Harduin, _Concilia_, VII, 19). The same canon reappears in the _Decreta_ of Gregory IX (Lib. iv, tit. 7. cap. 13). St. Thomas Aquinas declared that the loss of political rights was incurred by excommunication (_Summa_ [ed. 1853], III, 51). The teaching that faith need not be kept with a heretic was well established by the church in the thirteenth century. It was pleaded by the Emperor in the case of Huss—“quoniam non est frangere fidem ei qui Deo fidem frangit.”—Palacky, _Documenta Joannis Hussi_, I, 540.

The spirit of this teaching survived in the sixteenth century. In 1561 some citizens of Lucca, having embraced the Protestant belief, were obliged to flee from the city. The government of the republic, under suggestion from Rome, passed a law on January 9, 1562, that whoever killed one of these refugees, though he had been outlawed, yet would his outlawry be reversed; and that if he himself needed not this privilege, it could be transferred to another (_Archivio storico italiano_, X, app. 176, 177). On January 20, Pope Pius IV wrote to congratulate the city on this pious legislation: “Legimus pia laudabiliaque decretaque civitatis istius Generale Consilium nuper fecit ad civitatem ipsam ab omni heresum labe integram conservandam.... Nec vero quicquam fieri potuisse judicamus, vel ad tuendum Dei honorem sanctius, vel ad conservandam vestre patrie salutem prudentius.”—_Ibid._, 178, 179.

When Henry of Valois made oath to respect liberty of conscience in Poland he was informed that it would be sin to observe the oath, but that if he broke it, the sin of making it would be regarded as a venial offense: “Minor fuit offensio, ubi mens ea praestandi quae pelebatur, defuit.”—Hosii, _Opera_, II, 367.

The Ridolfi plot, it may be added, casts a very clear light upon the teaching and conduct of Pius V.

[I owe some of the information given above to a curious accident. In 1899, among a number of books which I purchased in London, I found a number of fragmentary notes dealing with this question. There is nothing to indicate their authorship, but in recognition of the assistance of some scholar to me unknown this acknowledgment is made. It may be added that the books purchased dealt with France in the fourteenth century].

[973] This was Montluc’s idea, which he broached both to the cardinal of Lorraine and Philip II, in the form of an edict which he himself improvised, and which we know that the king of Spain actually read (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 359-62). There are two Spanish translations of the first document in the Archives nationales. Philip indorsed the letter to Bardaxi in his own handwriting: “la carta para el cardinal de Lorena.”—_Ibid._, IV, 362, note.

[974] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 306; Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 368; letter of Margaret of Parma to Antonio Perez, September 27, 1565.

[975] The monotony of life and the tyranny of Spanish etiquette must have borne hard upon the little queen of Spain. But in the midst of the miseries of this “royal slavery,” as M. le comte de la Ferrière calls it, it was a crowning humiliation to be condemned to be the instrument of Philip’s political intrigues. That her young spirit rebelled, though hopelessly, against the situationis evident, from a pitiful letter written by her to her brother’s ambassador in Spain (La Ferrière, _Rapport_, 28).

[976] On Cardinal Pacheco see Poulet, I, 7, note and Index.

[977] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., lxxxiii, lxxxiv.

[978] The key to it was discovered in 1885. Suriano had been Venetian envoy at Trent. He was not the regular ambassador of the senate in France and his dispatches seem to have been in another key from that of Marc Antonio Barbaro the accredited ambassador.

[979] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., lxxxv.

[980] Combes, 47.

[981] “For a whole fortnight Catherine resisted the pressure of her daughter and the Spanish envoys, who found support in the drastic proposals of the leaders of the French Catholics. Within the last three days of the interview, however, concessions were made which satisfied Alva and his master, though Granvella and Alva exhibited some skepticism. The queen was prompted, ... not by Alva’s alleged threat that the King must lose his crown, or his brother Henry his head, but merely by her fear that the total failure of the interview would hinder the attainment of her ends. These concessions consisted in the engagement to accept the decrees of the Council of Trent and in an enigmatical promise of punishment or remedial measures. The latter, however, probably did not refer to the judicial murder or assassination of the Huguenot leaders—a scheme suggested by Montpensier’s confessor and welcomed by Alva—but to the expulsion of the ministers and subsequent enforcement of orthodoxy. The execution of these measures was postponed until the conclusion of the journey, but it seems probable that Catherine never seriously intended an act which would have been the inevitable sign of civil war.”—Armstrong in _English Historical Review_, VI, 578, 579 (review of Marcks, _Die Zusammenkunft von Bayonne_, Strasburg, 1889).

[982] For example La Noue, chap. xii (1567).

[983] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 509, 510; _R. Q. H._, XXXIV.

[984] “Tous les bruis que l’on fayst courer ne sont pas vray.... Et y a tent de noblèse au demeurant que tou les souir à la sale du bal je panserès aystre à Baionne si j’y voyais reine ma fille,” writes Catherine to the duke of Guise (_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 315).

[985] Fourquevaux, I, 6, November 3, 1565. Cf. _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 326—Catherine to Fourquevaux, November 28, 1565.

[986] For the beginnings of Catherine’s negotiations in Poland see _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., cv, 404; Capefigue, 412 ff.

[987] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 320.

[988] “C’est la rareté et la cherté des vivres qui nous chasse,” said Catherine to the Venetian ambassador (cited by La Ferrière, _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., cii).

[989] See the rhyme upon it in L’Estoile, ed. Michaud, series 2, Vol. I, p. 17.

[990] Cf. Babinet de Rencogne, “Sur un débordement de la Charente et la cherté des vivres en 1481,” _Bull. de la Soc. art._, etc., 1860, 3^[e] sér., II, 3 (Angoulême, 1862).

[991] Cf. Boutiot. “Notes sur les inondations de la rivière de Seine à Troyes depuis les temps les plus reculès jusqu’ à nos jours,” _Annuaire admin. pour 1864_ (Troyes), p. 17.

[992] Claude Haton, I, 395-98. This statement, even if there were no other evidence, is confirmed for the south of France by the court’s experience in the foothills of the Pyrenees in January, 1565 (cf. _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 465). For the west of France see _Chroniques Fontenaisiennes_ (Paris, 1841), 84, 85, and the “Journal de Louvet,” published in the _Revue d’Anjou_ in 1854. One quotation may suffice: “Au mois de febvrier, il tomba sy grande quantité de neige au païs d’Anjou et fust l’hyver si froid, que les rivières furent glacées et qu’on marchoit et passont par-dessus, et que tous les lauriers et romarins gelèrent, et qu’au dégel les eaux crurent et furent si grandes qu’elles rompirent des arches, ponts et chaussées, et fust ceste année appelée l’année du grand hyver.” I know of no article upon this subject as a whole. M. Joubert, _Etude sur les misères de l’Anjou aux XV^[e] et XVI^[e] siècles_, 1886, pp. 35 and 161, has a little to say. The subject deserves treatment. The sources of course are almost wholly local.

[993] Claude Haton, I, 331.

[994] _Idem_, I, 409.

[995] Catherine’s order to the marshal Montmorency, as governor of Paris, dated November 19, 1565, is in _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 325.

[996] The authorities of Provins made requisition of the grain possessed by private persons and appropriated all save that which was necessary for the owners, which was sold to the townspeople at the maximum price of 20 sous per _boisseau_. The abbot of St. Jacques and the prior of St. Ayoul baked bread to be distributed to the poor. One of the wealthy citizens from Easter till harvest made daily distribution of bread to more than three hundred poor, besides furnishing them with work (Claude Haton, I, 409).

The _boisseau_ (Med. Latin, _boissellus_ [Du Cange, _s. v._]) was an ancient measure of capacity equivalent to 13.01 litres, approximately 12 quarts. In remote parts of France the term is still sometimes used to indicate a décalitre. The _boisseau_ was used for both dry and liquid measure. On the other hand the _bichet_ (Med. Latin, _bisselus_ and _busellus_, whence the English bushel) was a dry measure, representing from one-fifth to two-fifths of a hectolitre (from 4.4 to 8.8 gallons) according to the province. The _setier_, was a larger dry measure of 6 pecks (Paris measure). The _muid_ (Latin _modius_) also was of variable capacity. That of Paris equaled 36 gallons. The _queue du creu_ was a large wooden cask, about equivalent to a hogshead and a half, and was used only for wine. The calculations of terms of American money are on the theory that the _livre tournois_ in 1565 was equivalent to 3.11 francs, according to the estimate of the vicomte d’Avenel in _Revue des deux mondes_, June 15, 1892, p. 795.

[997] Claude Haton, I, 418. For information on this subject see Reuss, _La sorcellerie au 16^[e] et au 17 siècle, particulièrement en Alsace d’après des documents en partie inédits_; Jarrin, _La sorcellerie en Bresse et en Bugey_ (Bourges, 1877); Pfister, “Nicolas Rémy et la sorcellerie en Lorraine à la fin du XVI^[e] siècle,” _Revue hist._, XCVII, 225.

[998] “Molins è città, ed à posta vicina all’ Alier, sopra il quale ha un ponte; è la principale del ducato di Borbon. Vi è un bellissimo palazzo, fabbricato già dai duchi di Borbon, posto in fortezza, con bellissimi giardini e boschi e fontane, e ogni delicatezze conveniente a principe. Tra le altre cose vi è una parte dove vi si teniano de infinite sorte animali e ucelli, delli quali buona parte è andata de male; pur vi restano ancora molti francollini, molte galline d’India, molte starne, è altre simil cose; è vi son molti papagalli vi diverse sorte.”—_Rel. vén._, I, 32, 34.

[999] When the court was at Blois so great was the number of strangers that the Knights of the Order made a house-to-house canvass.

[1000] _C. S. P. For._, _anno_ 1565, p. 524; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 523. For details upon the history of the six months between July and January, see _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, lxxxvii-cv.

[1001] _C. S. P. For._, _anno_ 1566, No. 17. Before the end of the month the old scores were officially “shelved” by decrees of the King in council (January 29 and 31, 1566). Many of the sources allude to this hypocritical reconciliation: De Thou, V, Book XXIX, 184; Poulet I, 125—letter of Granvella from Rome; D’Aubigné, II, 223-25; _C. S. P. For._, No. 57, January 29, 1566; Castelnau, Book VI, chap. ii.

[1002] _C. S. P. For._, No. 41, January 23, 1566.

[1003] _C. S. P. For._, No. 120, February 22, 1566.

[1004] _Ibid._, No. 150, March 6, 1566.

[1005] _Ibid._, No. 136, February 25, 1566. “The constable lies at Chantilly ill at ease.”—_Ibid._, No. 406, May 21, 1566. Poulet, I, 190, Morillon to Granvella, March 5.

[1006] _C. S. P. For._, _anno_ 1566, Introd. The text of the _ordonnance_ is in Isambert, XIV, 189; De Thou, Book XXXIX, 178-84, has much upon it. It is he who records the speeches of the King and the chancellor. It is interesting to observe that very similar conditions prevailed in Germany at this time. See the account of the Diet of Spires (1570) in Janssen, _History of the German People_, VIII, 75 ff.

[1007] Cf. Cheruel, _Histoire de l’administration monarchique de la France_, I, 196-203; Glasson, _Histoire du droit et des institutions de la France_, VIII, 170 ff.

[1008] The clergy of Guyenne were so incensed at this prohibition that they threatened to leave the country (_Archives de la Gironde_, XIII, 183).

[1009] See the case of the magnificence of the house of a Parisian shoemaker, who had purchased the estate of a king’s treasurer and enormously enriched himself with gold and silver. Under a pretext the queen mother secured entrance to the house. Claude Haton, I, 412, gives a detailed description of its magnificence.

According to an estimate of January 15, 1572, the income from the “Parties Casuelles,” that is to say, from offices vacated by the death of particular possessors thereof, and from the “Paulette,” was two million francs and yet the corruption in the administration was so great that the King received but a quarter of this amount (Cheruel, I, 208).

[1010] De Thou, V, Book XXXVII, 185; D’Aubigné, II, 224; _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 343, 344, 347, 387, April 28; May 3-4, 16, 1566; Forneron, _Hist. des ducs de Guise_, II, 59.

[1011] “On ne sait encore quant on délogera d’icy, combien que les laboureurs des champs ayent ja faict présenter deux requestes au Roy pour se retirer et sa suite à Paris jusques à ce que la récolte soit faict.”—Tronchon to M. de Cordes, July 4, 1567; quoted by the duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de Condé_, I, Appendix XVI.

[1012] “Politique de bascule,” _R. Q. H._, XXVII, 274.

[1013] _C. S. P. For._, No. 275, April 12, 1566.

[1014] It was estimated that, beside footmen, captains, men-at-arms, there were 20,000 horsemen attached to the various factions (_C. S. P. For._, No. 470, May-June, 1566).

[1015] _C. S. P. For._, No. 667, August 21, 1566.

[1016] _Ibid._, No. 715, September 14, 1566.

[1017] Hugh Fitzwilliam to Cecil: “The constable is of great authority with the king and the queen mother; and being mortal enemy to the house of Guise is with his nephews and the Protestants for his life.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 741, October 3, 1566.

[1018] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 515. “A man might easily perceive by the sour countenance the queen made that she liked not all that he had said. After he had saluted divers persons the king made him somewhat too short an answer for so long a demand.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 444, June 1, 1566.

[1019] “The king has made peace with his treasurers for a certain sum by the constable’s means, whereof something cleaves to his fingers.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 733, §2, September 28, 1566.

[1020] According to the estimate of this syndicate France had a population of from fifteen to sixteen millions (_Rel. vén._, III, 149).

[1021] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,111-15, April 18-19, 1567.

[1022] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 594, 595; Poulet, I, Introd., l-lii, n. 2; Gachard, _Don Carlos et Philippe II_, I, 303; _C. S. P. For._, No. 641, August 13, 1566. Coussemaker, _Les troubles religieux du XVI^[e] siècle dans la Flandre maritime 1560-70_; Van Velthoven, _Documents pour servir à l’hist. des troubles religieux du XVI^[e] siècle dans le Brabant_; Verly, _La furie espagnole, 1565-95_; Kervyn de Lettenhove, _Les Huguenots et les Gueux: Etude hist. sur vingt-cinq annels du XVI^[e] siècle (1560-1585)_, Bruges, 1883-85, 6 vols.; Poulet, _Correspondance du cardinal de Granvelle_, I, Introd., lvii-lxxvi; II, Introd., iv-vii; De Thou, V, 204-37; D’Aubigné, Book IV, chap. xxi.

[1023] The most notable of these was Francis Junius, who was driven out of Antwerp. The Spanish ambassador demanded his arrest but the prévôt de l’hôtel refused, alleging with right that Junius was the ambassador of the count palatine and entitled to immunity (_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., cviii).

[1024] On this famous siege of Malta see D’Aubigné, Book IV, chap. xix; De Thou, Book XXXVIII. It was begun on May 17, 1565.

Mingled with this fear was apprehension lest even the Turk might become an ally of the Flemings and the Protestant French (Poulet, I, 357, Morillon to Granvelle). That it was not an utterly fantastic notion of him alone, see the letter of Margaret of Parma to Philip II, in _Corresp. de Philippe II_, I, No. 411, and Gachard, _Corresp. de Guillaume le Taciturne_, VI, 408.

[1025] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, I, 259-89; Poulet, I, 207; Gachard, _La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, I, 88. “Avec la liberté des consciences, que aulcungs prétendent, nous ne nous trouverions pas mal si, suyvant l’exemple des François, nous tumbions aux mesmes inconvenientz.”—Letter of Granvella, April 9, 1566, in Poulet, I, 209.

[1026] Sir Francis Berty to Cecil: “The Prince of Orange since Wednesday shows himself openly to take the Gueux part, and divers of his men wear their badge. This town is marvellously desolated; great riches are conveyed out, chiefly by strangers.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 582, July 20, 1566, from Antwerp.

[1027] Poulet, I, 307.

[1028] We know of Montigny’s treason from a dispatch of Granvella to Philip II, July 18, 1565, in which the cardinal tells the King that Montigny is still successfully pretending to be a Calvinist and is in correspondence with the Châtillons and Montmorency. He had already been at least nine months in the pay of Spain. He got 20 écus per diem for one job (_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 404, 595). Montigny came to Paris ostensibly to attend the wedding of the duke of Nemours’ son to the admiral’s niece at Easter time. We get a line on Philip II’s methods at this point, for the Guises themselves were having secret and treasonable dealings with Spain, yet did not know of Montigny’s relation to Philip II and treated him with scorn and contempt (_ibid._; Poulet, I, 329; cf. Finot, _L’espionnage militaire dans les Pays-Bas entre la France et l’Espagne aux XVI^[e] et XVII^[e] siècles_).

[1029] Poulet, I, 304; Edward Cook to Cecil: “Montgomery has told him that the French Protestants are resolved to succour those of Flanders.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 661, August 18, 1566. This letter is analyzed in the _Bull. de la comm. roy. d’histoire_, 3^[e] sér., I, 129. Granvella’s confidant in Brussels, the prevost Morillon, wrote with truth on July 7: “Je croy que si avons mal cest année ce ne sera du costel de France.”—Poulet, I, 350. Cf. Reiffenberg, _Corresp. de Marguerite de Parme_, 88; Gachard, _Corresp. de Philippe II_, I, 429, 431, 436; at p. 473 is a letter dated October 15 in Italian from the duchess of Parma to Philip expressing fear of Huguenot projects.

[1030] Louis of Nassau without doubt was in close connection with the leading French Protestants. See _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, I, 229; II, 196, 403. It was extremely difficult to repress the ardor of the Protestants at Valenciennes, owing to its nearness of the French border and the number of Calvinist preachers whom the Huguenots sent into the country in June, 1566 (_ibid._, II, 135). For the influx of Calvinist preachers into the country as early as 1561 see Languet, _Epist. secr._, II, 155. The prince of Condé was reputed to have sold a tapestry for 9,000 florins, which he gave to the cause there (Poulet, I, 439).

[1031] Montluc to Bardaxi, October 27, 1564: _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 368.

[1032] Poulet, I, 64; Reiffenberg, 91; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, II, 175, 178.

[1033] _Corresp. de Philippe II_, I, 433.

[1034] The government of Charles IX even winked at the secret levies made by the prince of Condé for the benefit of Louis of Nassau, from behind the mask of an official repudiation of the complicity of any French in Flanders, denying that the prince of Condé was ever in Antwerp in disguise (Poulet, I, 521, 3; Gachard, _La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, II, 206). The last assertion, of course, was true. On July 24 a royal proclamation was issued at Alva’s instance, forbidding French subjects to go into the Low Countries “pour négotiation ou autrement.”—Poulet, I, 364; Gachard, _op. cit._, II, 27.

[1035] “Hinc illae lachrymae et ille metus,” wrote the provost to Granvella (Poulet, I, 405). It was the wish of the Emperor that the King of Spain would go in person and without an army to the Low Countries in order to pacify it by kindness and not by force (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, II, 505; Raumer, I, 173, December, 1566). But Philip II could not make up his mind to come in person to the Netherlands, although advised to do so by all. For years he continued to entertain the thought and continually put it off. See a letter of the Duchess of Parma to Duke Henry of Brunswick upon the coming of the duke of Alva, January 1567, in _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 21 ff.

[1036] On April 3, 1565, St. Sulpice sent word to Charles IX that Philip II had sent Menendez to Florida “avec une bonne flotte et 600 hommes pour combattre _les Français et les passer au fil de l’épée_.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 364. When Fourquevaux succeeded him the French government had not yet learned of the massacre. St. Sulpice’s fragmentary information is to be found at pp. 400, 401, 404, 414. The abortive efforts of France to secure redress are spread at length in _Corresp. de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 209, 330, 337, 338, 341, 342, 360; and in Fourquevaux, I, Nos. 4-7, 9, 15, 21, 28, 43, 47, 55, 66. The editor’s account in the Introd., xv-xxi is admirable. In the _Correspondencia española_, II, 126-28, is to be found Philip II’s letter to Chantonnay, February 28, 1566, in reply to the ambassador’s letter of advice about Coligny’s enterprise. The blood of French colonists who had been massacred in Florida cried out for vengeance, and from the hour of its knowledge the subject of reprisal was a matter of common talk in the Norman ports (_C.S.P. Dom._, Add., XIII, 227). On September 24, 1566, Sir Amyas Paulet, the English ambassador informed his government that he had information that a squadron was about to sail for this purpose, although it was “late for so long a voyage” (_ibid._, 31). On the whole history of this ill-fated colony see Gaillard, “La reprise de la Floride faite par le capit. Gourgues (1568),” _Notices et extr. des manuscr. de la Biblioth. Nat._, IV, and VII (1799); Gourgues, _La reprise de la Floride_, publiée avec les variantes, sur les MSS de la Bibl. Nat. par Ph. Tamizey de Larroque, 1867; Gafferel, _Histoire de la Floride française_, 1875; Parkman, _The French in North America_. The newest literature upon the subject is Woodbury Lowery, “Jean Ribaut and Queen Elizabeth,” _American Historical Review_, April, 1904, and the same author’s _The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the United States: Florida, 1562-74_ (New York, 1905).

[1037] De Thou, V, 37-40.

[1038] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 381, note. In 1558 Bolwiller made an inroad into France (_Bulletin des comités historiques_, 1850, p. 774; a summary of a letter concerning this episode to be found in the archives of Basel). On Bolwiller see _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 36, note. The new plan was occasioned by the issue of letters-patent of Charles IX on October 9, 1564, forbidding sale or alienation of any regalian rights of the Three Bishoprics without his consent (text in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 394).

[1039] Bolwiller to Granvella, October 16, 1564, on the written authority of Philip II (_ibid._, VIII, 429).

[1040] “Je tiens que les François, par voye de faict, y (Toul) mectront la main, comme ilz ont jà commencé, et le mesmes à Metz et Verdung.”—_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 465; Granvella to the Emperor, April 12, 1564.

[1041] _Ibid._, VIII, 504-6.

[1042] _Ibid._, IX, 44. Granvella to Perez, February 26, 1565; p. 111, Philip II to Chantonnay, then stationed at Vienna, April 2, 1565. Bolwiller intrusted the action to Egelolf, seigneur de Ribeauspierre (the German form is Rapolstein), a noble of Upper Alsace. His mother was a Fürstenburg. (See _ibid._, IX, 24, note.) Strange vicissitude, that a descendant of that house in the next century should have been Louis XIV’s right-hand agent in his seizures on the Rhine through the Chambers of Réunion, playing an identically opposite part from that of his ancestors.

[1043] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 71—Bolwiller to the cardinal March 20, 1565.

Metz was early famous for its interest in the Reformation. The laxness of the episcopal discipline in the first part of the sixteenth century contributed to the growth of this spirit, and finally led to a Catholic reaction. The city was more inclined, however, to Calvinism than to Lutheranism. Charles V prohibited the exercise of the Lutheran faith, but nevertheless, the Protestants of Metz made an alliance with the Smalkald League. Under the French domination the city passed definitely from Lutheranism to Calvinism. The French governor, Vieilleville, was a moderate in policy and granted the Huguenots a church in the interior of the town. During the first civil war the Protestants in Metz remained tranquil, but soon afterward Farel visited the city for the third time, and thereafter the city’s religious activity was considerable. The cardinal of Lorraine suppressed Protestant preaching in the diocese and closed the church. When Charles IX visited Metz in 1564 the edifice was destroyed and Protestant worship was forbidden. After the death of the Marshal Vieilleville, the count de Retz was made governor. One of the motives of the support of the Huguenot cause by John Casimir, the prince palatine, was a promise made by the Huguenots that he would be given the governorship of Metz. On the subject as a whole see Thirion, _Etude sur l’histoire du protestantisme à Metz et dans le pays Messin_, Nancy, 1885; Le Coullon, _Journal (1537-87) d’après le manuscrit original_, publié pour la première fois et annoté par E. de Bouteiller, Paris, Dumoulin, 1881.

[1044] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 462, 463.

[1045] Granvella to Perez, October 15, 1565; _ibid._, IX, 594, 595.

[1046] See Philip II’s letter to Chantonnay, October 22, 1565; _ibid._, IX 609 ff.

[1047] He had served in Italy in 1555 and became the cardinal’s bailiff and revenue-collector in the bishopric of Metz after the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis (_Commentaire et lettres de Montluc_, I, 228).

[1048] For an account of the “Cardinal’s War” see De Thou, V, Book XXXVII, 37-40. There is another account in the _Mém. de Condé_, V, 27, supposed to have been written by Salzedo himself. In F. Fr. 3, 197, folio 92, there is an unpublished letter of Salzedo’s (see Appendix IX), and another of the duke of Aumale upon this incident. Chantonnay comforted Philip for the disappointment over Metz by telling him, that while the restoration of the Three Bishoprics was indeed important, because of their bearing upon the situation in Flanders, the trouble had averted a marriage alliance between France and Austria which would have been more calamitous (Letter to Philip II, October 30, 1565, in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 625).

Two years later we find the tricky cardinal of Lorraine still protesting his innocence to Catherine and praying her not to be suspicious of him (Letter of December 6, 1567, Fillon Collection, No. 316).

[1049] Forneron, I, 346, on the basis of Alva’s letter to Philip on May 19, 1566, and the cardinal’s own letter, written at the same time (both preserved in K. 1,505, No. 99, and K. 1,509), assumes that the secret intercourse between Philip II and the Guises began in the year 1566 and ascribes the immediate occasion of it to the troubles in the Low Countries. He missed the inception of it by a year. Granvella’s letter conclusively shows that it began in July, 1565. Every word of this letter is of weight. It is to be found in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 399-402.

[1050] Johnson, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_, 328. For interesting details by an eye-witness, see Bourgon, _Life and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham_, II, 121 ff.

[1051] Poulet, I, 509; Gachard, _Don Carlos et Philippe II_, 354; _La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, II, 213. The disastrous news reached the King on September 5. For ten days he was ill with a high fever in consequence. Fourquevaux, writing from Segovia on September 11, to Charles IX, gives some details of Philip’s illness and how he was treated by the physicians and then adds: “Les Espagnols sont bien marriez d’entendre que les Lutheriens dud. pais (Flanders) ont commencé s’empoigner aux eglises et reliques, et à fere marier les prebtres et nonnains, avec infiniz autres maulx qu’ilz font, qui est le semblable commencement des doleurs qui advindrent en votre Royaume du temps des troubles.”—_Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_, I, 124, 125.

[1052] The Austrian lands were invaded by the Turks in the autumn of 1566 (_Négociations dans le Levant_, II, 721; Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 15).

[1053] It was a pose of Philip’s that the expedition was purely political; cf. Gachard, _Les bibliothèques de Madrid et de l’Escurial_, 94 ff., based on the correspondence of the archbishop of Rossano.

[1054] Dispatch to Charles IX, December 9, 1566 (Fourquevaux, I, 147-52). He waited in great anxiety for instructions from Paris, daily growing more suspicious because the Spanish King said not a word to him on the subject, although he sent for him in audience on January 14, 1567 (_ibid._, 167-72; dispatches of Jan. 5 and 18, 1567). The tremendous financial operations of the Spanish government (consult Gachard, _Don Carlos et Philippe II_, II, 369, 370) filled him with alarm, and he made an unsuccessful effort to bribe the secretary of one of Philip II’s ministers. He gathered that the Spanish forces would likely sail for Barcelona and disembark at Nice or Genoa (_ibid._, 176, 177, February 13, 1567).

[1055] Forneron, I, 347, on authority of Alva’s dispatch in K. 1,507, No. 2; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 527.

[1056] Gachard, _La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, II, 228. The dispatch was delayed on account of the illness of the courier and the heavy snows he encountered in the Pyrenees, and did not reach the ambassador until January 15, 1567 (Fourquevaux, I, 168). The correspondence of Bernardo d’Aspremont, viscount of Orthez, governor of Bayonne—unfortunately much scattered in the volumes of the Bibliothèque Nationale—shows the standing danger the southern provinces of France were in from Spanish invasion (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 400, note).

[1057] Poulet, II, 183.

[1058] D’Aubigné, II, 229, note.

[1059] Poulet, II, 495.

[1060] D’Aubigné, II, 228; Zurlauben, _Hist. milit. des Suisses_, IV, 335.

[1061] We learn this from a letter of George Paulet. See Appendix X.

[1062] Poulet, II, 183; _Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_, I, 173.

[1063] _Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_, I, 174, February 4, 1567. Philip II took these military preparations of the French with remarkable equanimity—even Charles IX’s positive refusal to allow the Spanish army to traverse France (March 24, 1567). He seemed to be sincerely anxious to avoid friction with France (see his letter to Granvella, February 17, 1567, in Poulet, II, 255, 256). The danger in the Low Countries was too great to allow any outside controversy. The clandestine operation of Protestant preachers in Spain itself and the smuggling of heretical books into the land, concealed in casks of wine, disquieted him more than France did at this season. (For information on this head see Poulet, II, 126, 142, 199; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 506; Weiss, _Spanish Protestants in the Sixteenth Century_.)

[1064] Fourquevaux (February 15, 1567), I, 180, 181. Granvella apparently, immediately after learning of the image breaking, and anticipating that either the King himself or the duke of Alva, would have to go to Brussels, sent a remarkable memoir to Philip II, in which he discusses all the various routes by which he might go, and the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. The physical difficulties of governing the Low Countries from Madrid are very evident (see Poulet, I, 469-80).