Hosey
April Adam 30th, 2007
Varying viewpoints on the French Wars of Religion
The Reformation was purely a religious movement. The Reformation was a political movement. The Reformation was a social movement. The Reformation was wrong. The Reformation was right. There are few debates in history that have as many varying and mercurial viewpoints as the Reformation. Even in the midst of the movement there were skeptics who felt that Protestants were using religion as a mere "cloak"1-- with political and economic gain as the true motive. With a new generation of historians coming forth in the 20th century, hundreds of years of historical "truth" has been questioned with the emphasis of the Reformation being placed on religion once again. It would be impossible to examine the Reformation as a whole in a mere six pages. As Mack P. Holt states in his book The French Wars of Religion, "Even specialist historians have never found explaining [the Reformation] a particularly easy task" (1995, p. 1). Holt maintains that the French Wars of Religion were about religion, if religion is understood as a social construction (p. 2). Looking at the characters and events during the period, the following paper will discuss both arguments of the French Reformation, that it used religion as a cloak, and that religion was the true purpose of more than fifty years2 of civil war. When the first murmurs of Protestantism coming to France were being heard it could be said that religion was the one motive. In 1559 there was a synod in Paris between members of various reformed communities in France. The delegates created a "Confession of Faith," which included forty Calvin-inspired articles. Most significantly, there was to be no connection with the established church of France. While the meeting stressed that there would still be loyalty to the king, as Daniel-Rops (1961) points out: The synod had very humbly assured the king of the loyalty of his Protestant subjects, and had begged him to study their doctrine more closely so that he might see for himself that it contained nothing subversive. But the underlying design of many of the ambitious leaders of the `Protestant party' was probably quite different. (The Protestant Reformation, p. 511)
1 2
The term "cloak" was used in the diaries of Pierre de l'Estoile (1546-1611). The length of the civil war is under debate, according to Holt, they lasted 1562-1629.
Daniel-Rops' vernacular is very interesting in this passage. Instead of simply using the phrase "leaders of the Protestants," he instead chooses to categorize the Protestants as a "party." This clearly implies that he saw the Huguenots as a political group rather than a religious movement. He goes on to explain, "The political antagonism was soon apparent" (p. 511). Three families held the power in France, the Bourbons, the Montmorencys, and the Guise. There were many significant people amongst these families, but perhaps no one was as enigmatic as Catherine de Medici, queen of France. Catherine is a fine example of a Politique ruler. Similar to a Machiavellian ruler, a king or queen who has a Politique attitude puts the state above all things, even religion. Although she was Catholic, Catherine was a regular at Calvinist sermons and made it clear of her support for Protestantism when the January Edict was created. The edict granted the freedom to practice Protestantism anywhere except inside fortified towns3. Unfortunately for Catherine, this edict brought nothing but problems. While the exact end of civil war in France is up for debate, the beginning is not. In March of the same year, the Duke of Guise came across a Protestant service at Vassy and massacred many of the worshipers. Thus started the French wars of religion. Catherine soon realized it was not in her best interest to fully support the Protestants. In her book Catherine de Medici and the French Reformation (1905), she states, "It was gradually being borne in upon her that her own security would demand a renunciation of the Protestants" (201). Civil war was running rampant throughout her country. Placing politics as the priority in lieu of religion, "Catherine de Medici now had no option but to turn to the Catholic triumvirate to put down the Huguenot insurrections" (Holt, p. 54). Despite her hatred of the Guise family, Catherine needed them to try to maintain peace and order. After a year full of death and turmoil, the Edict of Amboise placed tight restrictions on where Protestantism could be practiced, limiting worship to the suburbs of one town in each bailliage4. One exception that is of note is that Protestant nobles were allowed to practice their religion at home and on their estates. As Holt points out, "This gave Protestant nobles a decided advantage over ministers and townspeople in maintaining their leadership of the
3
Although even in fortified towns, worship was allowed in specifically designated houses. 4 The smallest unit of a town in France.
movement" (p. 55). Going back to Daniel-Rops analysis of Protestantism as a political party rather than a religious sect, the edict of Amboise gave nobles more power than ministers, once again putting more importance on politics rather than religion. The Protestant movement was quickly becoming a protest against the king rather than Catholicism. The Edict of Amboise ended the first civil war, but the second quickly started and as Holt points out, " Huguenot political rhetoric had acquired a decidedly anti-royalist tone during the second and third civil wars" (78). Perhaps for the first time, the concept of popular sovereignty was being advocated as Huguenots argued that people existed before the concept of "monarchy" and therefore had more power. Adding to the concept of the Huguenots as a political party, in 1572 an anti-monarchical constitution was created that plainly stated that a new king was needed. Rather than speaking about religious doctrine, strict terms were drafted that created a hierarchical system of Councilors that would run the "church." Included in the duties of the Council was taxation and making treaties. As well as political motives, there are also arguments to support socio-economic motives in the civil wars. In April of 1579, peasants massacred about 600 nobles in the village of Cuers. It can be reasonably assumed that this attack was not about religion because the peasant band included members from both denominations. There were many peasant uprisings during the period of 1578-80 and as Holt points out, the uprisings "are evidence that there were socio-economic many as well as political factors that could motivate French men and women to violence" (p. 117). Around 1576, another political party began to form, the Catholic League. After the death of the duke of Anjou in 1584, the League grew exponentially as "Godly warriors.5" The league opposed the fact that Protestant Henry of Navarre was the legitimate heir to the French throne. To have a Huguenot king would have been a travesty; the French king had long been known as "The Most Christian King." It was here that Spain entered the picture. Was it religion that motivated the wealthiest nation in Europe to support the Catholic League? While the goal was to purge Protestants from France and the Netherlands, the Treaty of Joinville that was signed also promised French help to recover the formerly Spanish city of Cambrai, and various territories along the
5
Taken from the title of the Denis Crouzet book, Les Guerriers de Dieu.
Spanish border. As well as these territorial gains, the League promised to promote the decrees of the Council of Trent, which was formerly resisted due to the threat of Gallican liberties. "The Treaty of Joinville was an agreement that would ensure Spanish influence on League policies for the next decade" (Holt, p. 124). Was it power or religion that motivated Spain to help the Catholics? As the previous arguments suggest, political power was more of a motive of the so-called "Wars of Religion." But yet, it could still be argued that religion was the primary motive for the Wars. The first massacre in Vassy was a Catholic response to the permitting of Protestant worship. The war started not because someone invaded someone else's territory, but because the Duke of Guise was offended that Protestants were worshiping publicly. The cultural landscape of the time period was starkly different than it is today. Religion was the culture. Catholicism bound the community together as one. As Judith Pollmann points out in her 2006 article Countering the Reformation: Most French Catholics found the thought of tolerating the Reformed religion completely unacceptable. The Calvinists were considered to be infringing on the traditional and sacred unity of the community of believers... Protestants who were separating themselves from this community... were considered to be polluting society. (p. 86) Just as Holt does, Pollmann places religion as part of society because it had such a large influence on it. Making this assumption, the French wars of religion can be seen as a struggle to keep Catholicism as the tradition, because anything else would lead to social upheaval. During the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, "Many of the participants in the massacre saw themselves as carrying out clerical roles of priests and purifiers and magisterial roles of judges and executioners" (Holt, p. 88). The following massacres throughout France were not random act of violence either; every massacred town had previously seen extreme religious division in the past. If the aftermath of St. Bartholomew were about political power, then different cities would have been attacked. The fact that every town hit had a sizable Huguenot population suggests that religious beliefs were the motive behind the slaughter. The massacres might have been religiously motivated. But what about the Catholic League? What about Henry IV's conversion to Catholicism? There are
arguments to be made for both of these that suggest religion as the priority. The Catholic League itself had many social and political tensions, but maintained it's temporary strength because it all believed in the maintaining of the divine right of the king. They were dis-united by political beliefs, but united by faith. In Radical Reactionaries: The Political Thought of the French Catholic League, Frederic Baumgartner quotes a Parisian member of the League Jean de Caumont: "Jesus Christ will conquer; Jesus Christ will reign; Jesus Christ will be king in France and will have His lieutenant render His justice, always `Most Christian'" (1975, p. 75). The political tensions could easily have torn apart the League, but its members' ability to place Catholicism at the forefront of their struggle allowed the League to have the Treaty of Nemours passed in 1585, which as Holt describes, "The Huguenots lost in one blow everything they had gained since the Edict of January, 1562" (p. 126). While the Treaty of Nemours took everything from the Huguenots, the conversion of Henry of Navarre took everything away from the Catholic League. It's obvious that Henry wished to end the civil war that was still occurring in his kingdom, but, according to Holt, it is ignorant to think that Henry was insincere in his conversion although, "Fears persisted that his heart had not change" (Rublack, Reformation Europe, 2005, p. 130). Holt maintains that Henry never said, "Paris is worth a mass," explaining that this line was created by Catholics as propaganda (p. 156). Holt states, "The goal `one king, one faith, one law' was as important to Henry IV as it was to his predecessors" (p. 156). To some historians, the French Wars of Religion ended with the Edict of Nantes in 16066. A purely religious edict, Huguenots were now allowed to worship everywhere except in Paris. A struggle that started in 1562 finally ended with a punctuation of religious toleration. While it can't be decided if the primary motive of the civil war was religion, it is very clear that there were many different aspects influencing the Wars of Religion. Historians will never know why the Duke of Guise attacked that group of Huguenots, and they will never know why Henry enacted the Edict of Nantes. All we can do is speculate. But there is no speculation regarding the fact that the Wars of Religion were a combination of a myriad of influences.
6
Although war against the Huguenots continued until 1626.
References Daniel-Rops, H. (1961). The Protestant Reformation (A. Butler, Trans.). London: J.M. Dent & Sons LTD. (Original work published 1958). Sichel, E. (1905). Catherine de' Medici and the French Reformation. London: Archibald Constable & Co Ltd. Rublack, U. (2005). Reformation Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baumgartner, F. (1975). Radical reactionaries: The political thought of the French Catholic League. Geneva: Librairie Droz. Holt, M. (2005). The French Wars of Religion, 1562-1629 (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pollmann, J. ( 2006). Countering the Reformation in France and the Netherlands: Clerical leadership and Catholic violence 1560-1585. Past and Present, 190, 83-120.