Catherine De' Medici: a Woman Before Her Time by Sara Grace

Home , Anne de Montmorency, Catholic League (French), Diane de Poitiers, La Reine Margot (novel), Queen Mother, Reign (season 1)

Catherine de' Medici: A Woman Before her Time

Sara Grace Ericsson

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts with

Honours in History

Acadia University

April, 2014

This thesis by Sara Grace Ericsson

is accepted in its present form by the

Department of History

as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts with Honours

Approved by the Thesis Supervisor

______Dr. Leigh Whaley Date

Approved by the Head of the Department

______Dr. Paul Doerr Date

Approved by the Honours Committee

______Dr. Matthew Lukeman Date

I, Sara Ericsson, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I, however, retain the copyright in my thesis.

______Signature of Author

______Date

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Throughout this long, difficult, frustrating, but ultimately rewarding process, there are several people who have served to inspire me.

To my mum, whose reassurance I depend on daily;

To my aunt, whose gift was inspiring;

To my sister, whose interest in a topic she knew nothing about was insatiable;

To my brother, whose patience knows no bounds;

To my dad, whose faith is appreciated;

To my nana, whose wry sense of humour is always refreshing;

To my grampie, whose quiet yet constant love I could never do without;

And finally, to my supervisor Dr. Whaley, whose ongoing advice and encouragement were the main reasons I was able to complete this project.

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………...……………………………vi

Introduction...... 1

Chapter 1...... 6

Chapter 2...... 40

Chapter 3...... 66

Conclusion...... 100

Appendix A...... 102

Appendix B...... 103

Appendix C...... 104

Appendix D...... 105

Bibliography...... 106

Abstract

The historiography of Catherine de’ Medici has evolved over time.

Historians such as Paul Van Dyke and Jean Héritier sought to change Catherine’s reputation as a tyrant through evidence of her capabilities as a ruler and political powerhouse. Others, such as Sir John Ernest Neale and Sir Francis Watson of the period of “great man historiography,” insisted upon prescribing to the narrative of her evilness. This thesis shall pursue the same objective as that of Van Dyke and

Héritier and attempt to show that Catherine was indeed a talented politician, who crafted conciliatory policies and maintained her power through her status as

Queen Mother. It shall also be shown that Catherine was not responsible for the

Saint-Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, and that it was caused largely by her son

Charles IX’s impulsiveness and the mobs of Paris.

Introduction

The purpose of this thesis is to present a new interpretation of the political career of Catherine de' Medici. Its principal argument is to prove that Catherine successfully established an extensive political career through the calculated manipulation of the imagery of motherhood and conciliatory policies, legislated to end the religious conflict between Catholics and Huguenots. The cessation of this conflict would, in turn, ensure the persistence of her power and authority in

France. Catherine de' Medici emerges among her contemporaries as an exceptional figure in the history of French politics. Unlike Francis I, Henry II,

Charles IX and Henry III, the Valois kings who ruled France during the 16th century, she never ruled in her own right. Catherine faced many challenges throughout her life, and overcame them largely as a result of personal cunning and initiative, showing a remarkable intelligence in matters of the state as she did so.1

Among her greatest achievements was her ability to portray herself as a woman of power in a country which had yet to accept this concept.

Instantly branded as inferior upon her arrival in France as the betrothed of

Henry,2 Catherine learned from a young age that she would decide her own

1 Paul Van Dyke, Catherine de Médicis, vol. I (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922), 69, accessed January 27th, 2014, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049893566;view=1up;seq=209. 2 Robert J. Knecht, The French Renaissance Court: 1483-1589 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 250. 1 destiny, whether it was a success or a failure. As an outsider at the French royal court, Catherine waited, patiently collecting support to ensure the security of her position at court.3 It would be years before she was able to exert power independently as Queen Regent, ruling in the name of her son Charles IX. Until then, Catherine served as the consort of Henry, and would do so until his death in

1559. From this position, Catherine was able to observe the political schema of the French court and its power players. Any prospect of direct influence she carried during this period was snuffed out by figures such as Diane de Poitiers, the long-time mistress of her husband, whose presence ensured that Henry paid little to no attention to Catherine, his wife.4

After the birth of their many children, however, Henry accorded Catherine more trust and responsibilities, naming her regent during his absences beginning in 1552.5 These regencies, which provided her first opportunity to act as head-of- state, were an apprenticeship to power for Catherine. After the death of Henry,

Catherine secured herself the regency of her son, the young King Charles IX. As the ruler of France, she was finally able to exert influence and sought to create safer conditions within the country for Huguenots, who had been prosecuted under Henry, and issued a number of edicts aimed at providing them with the right to worship in designated areas. Catherine placed limitations on Huguenot worship only to satisfy the Catholics and keep them from inciting conflict. These edicts were groundbreaking despite their limitations, as they marked the first

3 Jean Héritier, Charlotte Haldane, trans., Catherine de Medici (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1963), 35. 4 Hugh Ross Williamson, Catherine de' Medici (New York: The Viking Press, 1973), 38. 5 Crawford, 651. 2 occasion since the birth of the Huguenot faith that they had enjoyed any official rights in France.

Presenting herself as both the widow and mother of the kings of France,

Catherine used a careful combination of accepted norms and political imagery to secure her role as France's leading political figure. By forging permanent links between herself and kings, Catherine ensured that she remain the Queen Mother in the eyes of her subjects. Catherine's decision to use conciliatory policies was threefold, seeking to maintain her power and to cease religious and political conflict in France. She also used this approach because of the risk posed by political factions of the French court, whose ambitions were the main cause of conflict in France.6 Under the guise of religion,7 the Catholic and Huguenot factions embarked in a power struggle for political supremacy, fuelled by the personal ambitions of figures such as Gaspard de Coligny and the Guise family.

It was only when the threat of personal ambition proved too great, as it did with Coligny,8 that Catherine abandoned her policies and resorted to force to ensure her power as Queen Mother remain strong. As a result, Catherine became embroiled in the Saint-Bartholomew's Day Massacre, as the assassination of

Coligny that she had orchestrated failed,9 and, through a combination of Charles

IX's impulsiveness and the religious fervour of the mob in Paris, resulted in the murder of thousands of Huguenots throughout France. It is due to the

6 Crawford, 253. 7 Janet Glenn Gray, The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 101. 8 Gray, 124. 9 Van Dyke, vol ii, 83. 3 inconclusive nature of events leading up to the massacre that Catherine has been branded as a villain by historians such as Sir John E. Neale and Francis Watson, though she has never been proven guilty of any deed outside of Coligny's assassination.

The era of religious discord in France are not named the ages of Francis or

Henry. These years are collectively referred to as the age of Catherine, though her only time as official ruler of France was as Queen Regent from 1560 until 1563 as the regent for son Charles IX.10 The resounding influence she exerted over her children as a mother, a role she transferred successfully into politics, ensured her lasting influence and place as a leading figure in France until the outright independence of her third and final son, Henry III.11 However, the policies she was able to legislate, such as the edicts of Saint-Germain and Amboise, do not represent the full scope of her vision of a religiously and politically united France.

These documents represent the absolute limit of what French society would accept. Catherine sought to balance the political factions in France to ensure stability, and legislated accordingly. It was not until Henry IV's Edict of Nantes that Catherine's true vision of religious tolerance in France would be fulfilled.

Chapter One shall discuss the historiography surrounding Catherine which has wrongfully convicted her as a villain of French history, and also those who have attempted to reverse this judgment. Chapter Two shall demonstrate how

Catherine established her power, concentrating on her use of accepted norms to

10 Crawford, 660. 11 Martyn Rady, France: Renaissance, Religion and Recovery, 1494-1610 (London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., 1988), 83. 4 create a lasting image of herself as a wife, widow and mother,12 all in an effort to forge links between herself and the kings of France. Chapter Three focuses on

Catherine’s handling of the complex religious and political conflicts in France. In particular, it analyzes her role in the events leading up to and including the Saint-

Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

12 Katherine Crawford, “Catherine de Medicis and the Performance of Political Motherhood,” The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 31, no. 3 (2000): 657, accessed February 26th, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2671075. 5

Chapter 1

Historiography

Historical enigmas are often the bane of a historian's existence. The temptation to bypass a deep analysis of a topic in favour of prescribing to an established historical narrative is ascertained in the following statement by

Honoré de Balzac: “When men of learning are struck by a historical blunder …

'Paradox!' is generally the cry; but to those who thoroughly examine the history of modern times, it is evident that historians are privileged liars, who lend their pen to popular beliefs.”13 According to Balzac, women have been the recipients of this paradoxical view of history, and Catherine de' Medici has suffered chief among them. A historical narrative of Catherine as a wicked, cruel and selfish monarch was thus created, which became so easily prescribed to that it was adopted by authors of fictional works as well as historians. In 1922, Paul Van Dyke's ground breaking work attempted to replace these inaccuracies surrounding Catherine, but was unsuccessful in dispelling all myth.

The myth of Catherine's wickedness is continually fed through how she is portrayed by historians and authors of fictional works. The theme of Catherine as different from her contemporaries is presented by the arguments of authors such as Hugh Williamson, Francis Watson and Alexandre Dumas, who each offer evidence that Catherine de' Medici was a figure unlike any of her contemporaries.

These differences are portrayed through the deviant activities Catherine immersed herself in, such as the practice of astrology, which was considered by many as a dark and evil art.14 Claims of Catherine's 'Machiavellian duplicity,' defined by

13 Honoré de Balzac, About Catherine de' Medici, Seraphita, and Other Stories (Philadelphia: Avil Publishing Company, 1901), 3. 14 Christopher Warnock, “History of Astrology in the Renaissance,” Renaissance Astrology (2002), accessed December 18th, 2013, 7

Dictionary Reference as “characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty,”15 are frequent among arguments presented by authors such as Williamson, who argues that it became evident through her bipolar treatment of the Huguenots.16 Catherine's personal vendettas are also depicted and exaggerated by fiction authors such as Alexandre Dumas, who emphasized them in his hugely popular novel La Reine Margot.17 These three qualities culminate into the theme of Catherine's 'otherness,' which the authors use to categorize her as a deviant.

However strong these arguments, elements reflective of Catherine's skill and prowess, whether as Queen Regent or Queen Mother, emerge. Catherine, full name Catarina Maria Ramola de' Medici,18 is shown by all portrayals as a matriarch who sought to pacify and appease arguments rather than provoke them.

As will be seen throughout the following sources, Catherine's quest for the conciliation of divergent political, social and religious groups was for two reasons: the stability of her and her own on the throne of France, and to increase her own power. She sought to ensure her own power and the succession of her line.

http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/astrologyinrenaissancemain.html. 15 “Machiavellianism,” Dictionary Reference, accessed December 20th, 2013, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machiavellianism?s=t. 16 Hugh Ross Williamson, Catherine de' Medici (New York: The Viking Press, 1973), 14. 17 Alexandre Dumas, La Reine Margot: Part II (New York: The Century Co., 1909), 307. 18 Francis Watson, The Life and Times of Catherine de' Medici (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company Inc., 1935), 29. 8

Early Historical Fiction

The consideration of historical fiction is a key component in the analysis of historical figures. Since the great historical fictions of Honoré de Balzac and

Alexandre Dumas, Catherine de' Medici have persisted as a popular subject in novels, which portray her in different ways. These written works are important for several reasons. Whether intentional or not, fictional works influence the evolution of popular opinion on historical figures and events in many ways. Many historical novels are based on extensive research, and base the portrayal of their characters, such as Catherine de' Medici, on real circumstances and situations within which they existed, but then interpret these circumstances and portray them in different ways. The events such authors choose to include, therefore, become significant, as they remain in the forefront of memories of the novels' audience.

According to Matthew Phillpott, a Project Officer at the Institute of Historical

Research, “the historical novel adds flesh to the bare bones that historians are able to uncover and by doing so provides an account that whilst not necessarily true provides a clearer indication of past events, circumstances and cultures.”19 As acknowledged by Phillpott, historical novels interpret true historical events and figures in different ways, as they are written to capture the attention of an audience. Historical fiction therefore serves as a stepping stone in the analysis of historical figures; it should be considered, but used alongside academic sources.

19 Matthew J. Phillpott, “A Novel Approaches Prelude: A Brief History of Historical Fiction,” Institute of Historical Research, accessed January 16th, 2014, http://ihrconference.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/mphillpott-history-of-historical-fiction.pdf. 9

Honoré de Balzac, a prolific novelist in nineteenth-century France, writes in adamant support of Catherine in the preface of his fictional work, About

Catherine de' Medici. Though it is fiction, Balzac built his writing on a strong historical foundation. Scottish author and historian Sir Walter Scott, a contemporary of Balzac and literary figure who is widely considered to have perfected the historical novel,20 dubbed Balzac's writing as both “observation and imagination.”21 In the preface, Balzac argues convincingly that it was Catherine alone who saved the throne of France, ruling through an admirable mix of persistency and courage.22 His examination of the evidence against Catherine, namely concerning her role in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, is based upon the use of rationale to determine what conclusions he believes should have been drawn. Using the parallel of the French Revolution, he examines how other such massacres can occur.

The massacres of the Revolution are the reply to the massacre of Saint-Bartholomew. The People, being King, did by the nobility and the King as the King and the nobility did by the rebels in the sixteenth century. And popular writers, who know full well that under similar conditions, the people would do the same again, are inexcusable when they blame Catherine de' Medici and Charles IX.23

While he is not saying that either incident should have occurred, Balzac serves to highlight that the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was larger than either

Catherine or Charles IX.

20 “Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed December 20th, 2013, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/529629/Sir-Walter-Scott-1st-Baronet. 21 C.D. Merriman, “Honoré de Balzac,” The Literature Network (2006), accessed December 20th, 2013, http://www.online-literature.com/honore_de_balzac/. 22 Balzac, 6-7. 23 Balzac, 7. 10

However revolutionary this statement might seem, it is important to examine the biases that Balzac possessed. He was a self-professed devout

Catholic,24 and argues that Catherine foresaw that the Reformation would ruin

Europe.25 Balzac was also the ultimate sympathizer of the upper classes, and therefore may present a skewed analysis of their suffering. In a statement regarding Catherine's approach to statecraft, he claims that she also knew that the outcome of free-will, religious liberty, and political liberty – excluding civil liberty from his list – would destroy France;26 as proof, he offers France in 1840, which he argues suffered from the lack of suppression of these ideals. As an end to his portrait, Balzac offers an interesting piece to the puzzle that is his depiction of Catherine, arguing that her rule was one of a man.27 It seems that even he, who was so willing to relieve Catherine of any fault, has prescribed to a belief in the inferiority of the female sex. Balzac has given Catherine credit as a ruler, but only in a male context.

Another illustrious French writer of the nineteenth-century is Alexandre

Dumas, whose novel La Reine Margot, written in 1845, offers an interesting dichotomy to Balzac's About Catherine de' Medici. As both men were friends during the time of their literary success,28 the opposing nature of their novels is especially striking. The second section of this novel focuses on Catherine's role at the French court post-massacre, a period which is often left out of the fictional

24 John Marshall Guest, “The Law and Lawyers of Honoré de Balzac,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register vol. 60, no. 2 (November 1911): 60, accessed December 21st, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3313188. 25 Balzac, 8. 26 Balzac, 9. 27 Balzac, 14. 28 Merriman, http://www.online-literature.com/honore_de_balzac/. 11 analysis of Catherine's life for lack of entertaining material. Throughout his depiction of Catherine as Queen Mother, Dumas focuses on the diverse ways in which Catherine differed from the rest of the court. Referencing her foreign birth,

Dumas writes about her strange Italian ways: “Under certain circumstances it was

Catherine's habit – a habit, for that matter, wholly Florentine – to have prayers and masses read the object of which was known to God and herself.”29 He continually emphasizes her otherness, through her reliance on such practices as magic and astrology.

Dumas writes about a certain Florentine astrologer Catherine consulted, while accompanied by her son Henri of Anjou, to determine the length of her son

Charles' life.30 It is implied, through the novel's narrative that Catherine sought to place Anjou on the throne, that she is waiting for Charles to die; this is but one of many dark instances described by Dumas. He also writes of her quest to kill

Henry of Navarre, husband of her daughter Margot, on whom this novel is centred. “That detested Henry, constantly escaping her snares, which were usually fatal.”31 Dumas' creation of this evil Catherine is epitomized through the dungeon he describes, hidden underneath a trap door, that his fictional Catherine made extensive use of during her reign as Queen Regent.32 This dungeon, where her victims would plummet approximately 100 feet to their deaths, was a “damp and unwholesome place.”33 It is such dark depictions of Catherine's character that

29 Dumas, 307. 30 Dumas, 376. 31 Dumas, 329. 32 Dumas, 413. 33 Dumas, 413. 12 sustain the belief in her evil nature and continue to shroud her in darkness.

Paul Van Dyke: A Thorough Biography

Princeton professor and historian Paul Van Dyke's extensive two volume biography, Catherine de Médicis, completed after ten years of grueling study, has been widely received as one of the most credible and thorough examinations of

Catherine's life and character. In a review written one year after the biography's publication, critic Theodore Collier lists the numerous institutions from which

Van Dyke drew sources, including France's Bibliothèque Nationale and Archives

Nationales, the British Museum, and the Vatican, as well as German, Swiss and

Italian libraries.34 Collier also emphasizes Van Dyke's use of primary sources as evidence for his arguments.35 Indeed, Van Dyke's biography intentionally excluded contemporary biographical works on Catherine, as none were based on an analysis of primary sources.36

Throughout his biography, Van Dyke emphasizes that Catherine was first and foremost a mother. In addition to the constant supervision and administration of her children's education in their youth, Catherine insisted on arranging their marriages, due to her overwhelming concern on the matter.37 Her maternal instinct, as emphasized by Van Dyke, is also evident in the letters she wrote

34 Theodore Collier, “Review: Catherine de Médicis by Paul Van Dyke,” The American Historical Review 28, no. 3 (April 1923): 536, accessed November 26, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1836421. 35 Collier, 537. 36 Paul Van Dyke, Catherine de Médicis, vol. I (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922), vii, accessed November 25, 2013, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t3dz06f66;view=1up;seq=13. 37 Van Dyke, 9. 13 consistently to Philip II, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, husband of her deceased daughter Elizabeth, regarding the care of her grandchildren: “Until the end of her life she wrote continually to their father and to others expressing anxiety about their care and happiness.”38 Catherine's maternal instinct also extended to her country; during a period of war, after she had fallen ill for two months in 1569, Catherine continued to perform her royal duties, which at one point included a royal council meeting until 4 am and then to a military camp to appease the quarreling nobles, all while still visibly weakened and fatigued.39

“She showed both courage and curiosity in regard to the actual operations of war.”40

Van Dyke also acknowledges Catherine's strong belief in the powers of astrology, an art form whose unpopularity was evident through its banning by the

Estates General.41 Its practice was also discredited by individuals such as

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, a leading Italian philosopher of the Renaissance who exposed the many inaccurate and contradictory predictions made by astrologers.42 Though some prophecies Catherine subscribed to came true, such as those of Nostradamus predicting that three of her sons would ascend the throne,43

Van Dyke argues that Catherine's strong belief was sometimes taken advantage of by people who claimed to be astrologers, a title which was used interchangeably

38 Van Dyke, 10. 39 Van Dyke, 20. 40 Van Dyke, 20. 41 Van Dyke, 22. 42 Brian Copenhaver, “Giovanni Pico della Mirandola,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012), accessed December 21st, 2013, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pico-della- mirandola/. 43 Van Dyke, 9. 14 with that of magician. He wrote that:

As time went on the credulity of Catherine leading her to be preyed upon by men who would send her ...reports... made the third of her sons to mount the throne very angry and he said, in the presence of two witnesses, 'He was tired of seeing his mother cheated by false magicians who got a great deal of money out of her and didn't do anything.'44

Catherine's reliance on this so-called art form was so obvious that it was even noted by her son. 45

As he sought to give a fair analysis of Catherine as a ruler, Van Dyke acknowledges that she had been planning on ridding France of Huguenot leaders before 1569.46 However, contrary to subsequent authors, Van Dyke also discussed what impact international circumstances had on Catherine's decision-making.

According to Van Dyke, “it soon became evident that the question of peace or war as not one which could be decided... [by] her court policy. The Huguenots were still able to keep the field and so long as they kept the field, there was always the chance of foreign interference on their behalf.”47 Support existed for Protestant groups in both England and Germany, countries which could easily pose a threat to Catherine and the place of her family on the throne of France should they invade. Catherine was therefore temporarily driven to accept peace, according to

Van Dyke, to ensure that France remain stable, regardless of her personal want or lack of a want of peace.48

44 Van Dyke, 23. 45 Van Dyke, 23. 46 Van Dyke, 21. 47 Van Dyke, 29. 48 Van Dyke, 31. 15

The evidence Van Dyke includes in his ground breaking academic analysis of Catherine de' Medici presents a monarch who consistently acted in what she thought was the best interest of her family and her country. Catherine’s motivation is reflected in her second move of conciliation with the French Huguenots in

1569: Van Dyke argues that she was not a fool, duly noting the military strength of the Huguenots.49 His view of Catherine as a competent, effective ruler was indeed a new one. Van Dyke's effective use of primary sources contributed to the success of his analysis, a revolutionary interpretation of Catherine.

Van Dyke's systematic analysis of primary source documents relating to

Catherine was also a contributing factor to the evolving historiography of women.

As a general comment, Margaret Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan and Nancy

Vickers, editors of Rewriting the Renaissance, offer the following as explanation for why views of the Renaissance and its women have been subject to change:

“Our views of the Renaissance have, until quite recently, been largely shaped by educated middle-class men writing for, and frequently about, other educated men.”50 Nowhere is this more evident than in the “great man” historiography of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which did not end after Van Dyke.

49 Van Dyke, 35. 50 Margaret W. Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers, eds., Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986), xv. 16

“Great Man” Historiography

One of the greatest contributors to the “Great Man theory” was Thomas

Carlyle, a prolific Scottish essayist and historian of the 19th century. Carlyle stated that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men,” and cited hero figures such as Muhammad, Dante, Martin Luther and Napoleon as the greatest contributors to history.51 Of the authors that follow, Francis Watson, Sir John

Ernest Neale, and Milton Waldman are its foremost subscribers. The titles of the biographies can themselves be indicative of this style of historiography, as is evident with The Life and Times of Catherine de' Medici and The Age of

Catherine de' Medici. It is also noteworthy that the foremost prescribers to this method of historiography were men, as previously noted by Carlyle.52

Published in 1935, Watson's analysis of Catherine is at times condescending and others considerate. Catherine, as argued by Watson, learned the talents of dissimulation and cynicism at a young age.53 As she became integrated into the French court as Henri II's wife, Watson suggests that there were some at the French court who idolized her, but more who disdained her – a sentiment that would last a lifetime. To the people of France, in Watson's opinion,

“Catherine would remain forever 'the Italian woman' – spoken sometimes with a curious admiration, but more often with mistrust or hatred.”54 Watson does acknowledge, however, that much of this hatred was due to Catherine's interloper

51 “Thomas Carlyle,” Encyclopaedie Britannica, accessed November 27, 2013, http://www.britannica.com/checked/topic/96126/Thomas-Carlyle. 52 “Thomas Carlyle,” http://www.britannica.com/checked/topic/96126/Thomas-Carlyle. 53 Watson, 29. 54 Watson, 45. 17 status.55 She was constantly rumoured to be at the centre of murderous plots, the first among which surrounded the death of the Dauphin, Henri's older brother.56

Throughout his analysis, Watson maintains that Catherine's actions and decisions transcended her emotions. Describing her as a monument of heartless common sense, he claims that this innate ability set her apart from other women of the era.57 Catherine's treatment of the Catholic-Huguenot conflict was hugely reflective of this skill. After the massacre of Huguenots worshipers at Vassy in

1562, Catherine sought to maintain peace and public order, agreeing to advise both Protestant and Catholic parties and their leaders after the event.58 She understood that each party sought to control her son, the young King Charles IX, whom she presided over as regent; by advising both groups, she ensured that the authority of the crown continue to reside solely within herself, by preventing either side from holding power.59 As evident through the examples he uses,

Watson argues that Catherine made decisions based on her pursuit for the security of her power.60

As a general commentary on the women of the Renaissance, Watson made the following statement: “In the early Renaissance it is the women who modify by their influence the political excesses to which the men are tempted, but it is the men who rule and accept the responsibility.”61 Directing this statement to

Catherine, he continues: “in this age of female diplomacy, Catherine … places her

55 Watson, 65. 56 Watson, 65. 57 Watson, 200. 58 Watson, 216. 59 Watson, 216. 60 Watson, 223. 61 Watson, 127. 18 sons on the throne in front of her and stands above them to manoeuvre her pieces on the board.”62 Watson argues that Catherine dominated her children, most notably her sons. He does not deny her the credit of effective ruling, but it is implied in his argument that she manipulated her sons to further her personal political agenda, through his reference to a chess board.

Sir John Ernest Neale, a former professor of British History at Astor

College in London, gave a series of lectures entitled “The Age of Catherine de

Medici” in 1938 at Alexandra College in Dublin, Ireland, and again in 1942 at the

University College of North Wales. His speech presented an interesting argument; partially sympathetic to Catherine's cause, he argued that she possessed great charm and vitality.63 Though partially complimentary, the characteristics emphasized by Neale are begrudgingly female. These skills, according to Neale, predisposed Catherine to a natural inclination for politics, but provided her little skill as a statesman.64 According to Neale, “she lacked any grasp of principles.

...She was, in fact, a politician, a very able politician, not a statesman; and her charm coupled with her vitality made her most successful at the game.”65 To credit one with the skill of a politician is simply to say that they are good at arguing and persuasion. Through his statement, Neale has reduced Catherine to an individual who relied on an ability to hold sway and influence over people, without possessing any competencies in regards to statecraft.

62 Watson, 127. 63 J.E. Neale, The Age of Catherine de Medici (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Incorporated, 1962), 41. 64 Neale, 41. 65 Neale, 41. 19

Neale effectively highlights several details which explain the hatred of

Catherine by the French court. Her marriage was considered a mésalliance, an alliance that served absolutely no benefit to France. She was a woman of inferior birth, a fact she was constantly reminded of after becoming a princess of France.66

He continues his argument by adding that she herself both understood and accepted that she was not of the same rank as the other women at court. He states that, “she never overcame the sense of her inferior origin, and her exaggerated respect for royalty was time and again to influence her policy.”67 Her so-called inferior origin was to cause her to seek increased security as a monarch, according to Neale, who argues that this played a role in her visceral attitude toward religious conflict in France. He emphasizes that Catherine would seek any means to establish her personal and her family's control over the throne: “[She was] a frantic woman determined to save herself and rescue France from its deadly plague of religious strife, for the wholesale murder of the Huguenot leaders in

Paris.”68 According to Neale, she would even go so far as to order the slaughter of thousands of innocents, if she believed it would guarantee the throne's security.69

Neale alludes to this event through his position on Catherine's relationship with her children. He does not deny the fact that she possessed a great love for them, as so many other historians have done, but argues that her domination of them impeded them from proper independent growth, stating that, “She loved her children and dominated them with her affection and personality in a way that was

66 Neale, 41. 67 Neale, 41. 68 Neale, 78. 69 Neale, 78. 20 ruinous to them. The blackest event in her whole story – the Massacre of St.

Bartholomew – had its root in this instinct.”70 His position on this historical event is therefore very clear; his argument suggests that he was entirely supportive of the constructed narrative that Catherine bore full responsibility for the Huguenot massacre.

Milton Waldman, author of the 1936 scholarly work Biography of a

Family, also discusses the domination Catherine exerted over her children.

Waldman, whose primary interest was as a publisher, famously refused to published Tolkien's Lord of the Rings due to his concern over its length.71

Waldman portrays Catherine as a mother who believed the domination she exerted over her sons was essential to securing the throne against the influence of competing forces of the Guise family, allied with Scotland through their niece

Mary Queen of Scots, and her Bourbon and Montmorency rivals, who both maintained a strong faction at court, were the main threats against the Valois line.72 As these families posed serious threats to the Valois line, Catherine understood that her son on the throne would be dominated by these divergent court factions, and therefore sought to ensure that her influence was the greatest.73

With this argument, Waldman offers a counter explanation for Catherine's dominance over her children.

70 Neale, 42. 71 Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull, “Milton Waldman,” Tolkein Gateway, accessed December 22nd, 2013, http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Milton_Waldman. 72 Milton Waldman, Biography of a Family: Catherine de Medici and her Children (Cambridge The Riverside Press, 1936), 14-15. 73 Waldman, 22. 21

In his chapter “The Great Matriarchy,” Waldman suggests that Catherine viewed herself as a matriarch of France, and the two diverging religions of

Catholics and Huguenots as bickering children.74 He argues that she believed, as a mother, that she was fully capable of bringing these two parties to coexist peacefully.75 As such, Waldman was sympathetic in his portrayal of Catherine and her role in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. By using such distinct maternal qualities, Waldman does not seek to tarnish Catherine as a weak woman, but rather to give an honest portrait of her. Though his views may be dated, they do set him apart from many of his contemporaries, such as J.E. Neale, who confined

Catherine to a much harsher character.

Waldman also discusses the various relationships Catherine had with her children, and what impact these had on their growth as individuals. He argues that her domination of their early lives was not fueled by her desire to see them flourish academically or morally; instead, Waldman states that Catherine designed the education of her children to “assist the little princes and princesses to hold their own in a sadly unscrupulous world.”76 He argues that she was quick to recommend that they trust no one but her, and that they guard themselves from weak emotions.77 Waldman's focus on Catherine's relationship with Charles is also noteworthy; her favouring, along with the rest of France, of Henri over

Charles is cited as the central contributor to Charles' jealous rages and sudden fits

74 Waldman, 66. 75 Waldman, 66. 76 Waldman, 78. 77 Waldman, 78. 22 of anger.78

Waldman's analysis of Catherine de' Medici meets an impasse as he discusses her role in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. He argues that Condé's attempt to kidnap Charles ignited Catherine's hatred of the Huguenots, and her move to rid France of their presence.79 “No longer was Catherine neutral between the parties, seeking only the quickest possible peace. She had begun, though unconsciously as yet, to play with the idea of crushing the Huguenots once and for all.”80 This quotation is pure speculation, and does not bear any direct evidence suggesting that this moment did indeed inspire such a decision, much less, as has yet to be determined, whether Catherine was involved in ordering the massacre.

Moving Away From the “Great Man” Theory

Though some authors continued to support dated historiographical methods after the publishing of Van Dyke's work, others chose to follow his example by actively searching for a more complex explanation of Catherine's character. By placing her in the social context of a 16th century woman, the following authors attempted to explain and justify Catherine's actions through the context of her situation. First published in 1940, Jean Héritier's Catherine de

Medici evokes the same sympathetic view of Catherine as Paul Van Dyke, whose work Héritier used as a foundation for his own research.81 Héritier argues that

78 Waldman, 79. 79 Waldman, 67. 80 Waldman, 68-69. 81 Henri Drouot, “Jean Héritier – Catherine de Medicis,” Revue d'histoire de l'Église de France 23

Catherine was a monarch misunderstood by her subjects; as a woman, the political boundaries she breached were ahead of her time.82 He also suggests that her husband Henri II was a useless monarch, who accomplished nothing for

France, and that proof of this lies in the legislation which future political figures in France chose to follow.83 “What did remain of [François'] activities was saved and preserved by Catherine de Medici. Henri IV, Louis XIII and Richelieu,

Mazarin, Louis XIV again all took up and completed the political policy of

François and Catherine.”84 If these rulers did indeed chose to follow the legislation set out by Catherine, then Héritier is absolutely right in assuming that she deserves more credit as a monarch then Henri II, even though she ruled as regent, and not in her own right.

Héritier also emphasized that Catherine had an intricate knowledge in the navigation of court politics. She understood her place at the French court as a young princess, married to the second prince: she was not expected to inherit the throne, and so acted obediently and submissively.85 She also had a well-rounded

Renaissance education, and a passion for astrology, which she followed alongside her Catholic religion.86 As argued by Héritier and other authors, this obsession with astrology would be used by members of the French court to vilify her, as it contributed to their misunderstanding of her. Héritier occupies a similar stance on

vol. 27, no. 112 (1941): 243, accessed December 22nd, 2013, http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rhef_0300- 9505_1941_num_27_112_2924_t1_0243_0000_4. 82 Jean Héritier, Charlotte Haldane, trans., Catherine de Medici (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1963), “Preliminary Note.” 83 Héritier, 34. 84 Héritier, 34. 85 Héritier, 35. 86 Héritier, 43. 24

Catherine's role in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, insisting that she was not responsible for its occurrence. “Catherine was always to be the messenger of peace; a messenger, alas, misunderstood and fought against.”87

Héritier argues that Catherine consistently worked to maintain a peaceful kingdom, but was willing to use violent tactics should they induce effective outcomes, a practice her extensive studies of Machiavelli had taught her.88

Though it would be done indirectly through a hired assassin, her desire to kill

Coligny was a byproduct of the peace she sought for the greater good of France.

Héritier describes how she could be simultaneously caring and harsh:

The Queen Mother was not cruel, as she had proved time and time again. Historians may leave to her libellers the legend of an imaginary Medici who delighted in availing herself from poison. But if she was not cruel neither was Catherine tender-hearted. She could be hard, and could watch torturings as calmly as she was prepared to risk her own life in the trenches of Rouen and Le Havre.89

The method Catherine used of controlling France was therefore, according to

Héritier, the same as that she used to rear her children.

Hugh Ross Williamson, a historian, playwright and author, published his biography Catherine de' Medici five years before he died in 1978.90 Earlier in his life, Williamson experienced an interesting change in religious attitude; beginning as a Nonconformist, he then became an Anglican clergyman and later converted to

Catholicism.91 As such, his analysis of Catherine and the method in which she

87 Héritier, 44. 88 Héritier, 313. 89 Héritier, 313. 90 “Hugh Ross Williamson,” Sophia Institute Press, accessed November 24, 2013, http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/cw_contributorinfo.aspx?ContribID=72&Name= Hugh+Ross+Williamson. 91 http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/cw_contributorinfo.aspx?ContribID=72&Name=Hugh+Ross+ 25 ruled is also interesting, and reflective of the same change in views as his religious affiliations. Throughout his book, Williamson consistently emphasizes

Catherine's use of Machiavelli's political treatise The Prince, insisting that she made such frequent reference to it that it became known as her bible.92 He then argues that Catherine's “Machiavellan duplicity” became increasingly evident through the public's belief that she harboured sympathies for Huguenots, when she supposedly had none.93 Though he offers no explanation of the term

Machiavellan duplicity, it is self-explanatory, meaning to pretend to subscribe to two different practices for the benefit of oneself.94 Williamson therefore implies that Catherine based her personal and political decisions on this method.

In addition to his belief in her duplicity, Williamson also discusses the popular belief in Catherine's otherness at the court of France, which was encouraged not only by her foreign status but her devotion to astrology. He claims that the court's belief in her otherness caused many to believe she personally caused every accident or death that occurred.95 When the Dauphin Francis died after drinking a glass of water at a tennis match, his loyal assistant Montecuculi was charged with his poisoning; Catherine was immediately seen as a conspirator to this crime. “It was enough for the populace that Montecuculi was an Italian and the death of the Dauphin made Catherine's husband heir to the throne for them to maintain that 'the Italian woman' was responsible for the poisoning.”96 Williamson

Williamson. 92 Williamson, 14. 93 Williamson, 57. 94 “Machiavellianism,” Dictionary Reference, accessed December 20th, 2013, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machiavellianism?s=t. 95 Williamson, 43. 96 Williamson, 43. 26 also claims that seven out of the eight people who decided to order a massacre on

St. Bartholomew were Italian, except for one full Frenchman.97 Though he means to increase her otherness, Williamson includes her two sons Charles IX and Henry

III in his list of Italians.98 His failure to highlight this detail infers that there are others that he may have left out in his analysis as well.

In 1988, Frederic Baumgartner, an American professor at Virginia Tech, published his book Henry II. Though his book is a biographical sketch of Henry

II, there is very little mention of Catherine and her role as Queen Consort, a surprising fact given the large focus paid to the period after which Henry became

King of France. When he does mention Catherine, Baumgartner emphasizes why and how she learned in her youth to use charm and wit, rather than her beauty, to establish alliances.99 He argues that Catherine was aware of the inferiority of her looks, and therefore chose to use her intelligence to further her status at court.100

He also details other measures she would later depend upon to ensure her and her family's security upon the throne, such as the tearing down of her enemies.

There existed a commonplace myth that Catherine had poisoned Francis, the dauphin, to further the interests of herself and her husband, as noted in 1935 by Francis Watson.101 Of this myth, Baumgartner explains that not only did members of the French court buy into it because of Catherine's position as wife of

Henry II, but because Italians were considered the most advanced toxicologists of

97 Williamson, 41. 98 Williamson, 41. 99 Frederic J. Baumgartner, Henry II: King of France 1547-1559 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1988), 30. 100 Baumgartner, 30. 101 Watson, 65. 27 the era.102 Catherine's otherness certainly played a role in manufacturing the right circumstances for a public opinion which frequently moved against her; her own husband favoured another above her. Though she never wore the crown, his mistress Diane de Poitiers benefited initially to a far greater extent than

Catherine.103 Catherine's contempt for Diane was controlled, but apparent on a few occasions. Baumgartner argues that it likely amounted to an evil deed on one occasion. “There may have been a blacker element to Catherine's resentment.

There is circumstantial evidence that at one point she plotted to have the duc de

Nemours arrange for acid to be thrown in Diane's face to disfigure her famed beauty.”104

Though he specifies that this evidence is circumstantial, the mere fact that

Baumgartner chose to include it in his historical examination of Catherine's actions during the time she endured the mistress of her husband infers that he believes there is a strong possibility that such an action occurred. It is clear that the author believes that Catherine was not unwilling to resort to such ploys to weaken the influence of her enemies, or in this case the mistress of her husband.

Modern Female Historians

As male historians were the primary followers of the 'great man' historiography, female historians have become its biggest objectors. Nicola M.

Sutherland and Janet Glenn Gray are two such historians who have contributed to

102 Baumgartner, 31. 103 Baumgartner, 56. 104 Baumgartner, 99. 28 the practice of analyzing the situation within which Catherine de' Medici found herself by employing careful considerations of her social context. Sutherland argues against the popular belief in Catherine's wickedness through a presentation of evidence from the written testimonies of three contemporaries of Catherine from the late 16th and early 17th centuries; these individuals portrayed Catherine as an effective ruler who was a victim of her circumstances.105 Gray also denounces Catherine's wickedness, arguing that she consistently sought to create a stable kingdom.106 Finally, Sheila Ffolliott argues that Catherine had to construct links between herself and former monarchs to create an image of herself as a strong ruler due to male-driven society within which she lived.107

Nicola M. Sutherland, author of the scholarly article “Catherine de Medici:

The Legend of the Wicked Italian Queen,” effectively argues that Catherine de'

Medici was a woman who attempted to navigate through a difficult set of circumstances to the best of her abilities. Published in 1978, Sutherland' article offers a plausible explanation of why past and present authors simply assume

Catherine's evil nature. To begin, Sutherland establishes that all hatred stemmed directly from Catherine's perceived role in the St. Bartholomew's Day

Massacre.108 Furthermore, she argues that many historians find placing blame for

105 N. M. Sutherland, “Catherine de Medici: The Legend of the Wicked Italian Queen,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 9, 2 (July 1978): 45, accessed November 5, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539662. 106 Janet Glenn Gray, The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 61. 107 Sheila Ffolliott, “Catherine de' Medici as Artemisia: Figuring the Powerful Widow,” Margaret W. Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers, eds., Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986), 228. 108 Sutherland, 45. 29 the event a simpler solution than attempting to understand it fully.109 Sutherland suggests that the young King Charles IX and Duke of Guise were possible culprits, yet acknowledges that historians continue to lay blame solely with

Catherine.110 Sutherland discusses a dichotomy that currently exists in the perception of Catherine by modern historians, and notes that a similar one existed during Catherine's own lifetime as well. The individuals who admired her were comprised both of Catholics and Huguenots, as were those who vilified her.111

Sutherland correctly states that Catherine is a subject upon which people cannot agree. Historians who lived as her contemporaries, however, largely accepted that she was not wicked, but merely a woman who “struggled against forces so powerful that she could never hope to overcome.”112 Interestingly, these contemporaries were all men; Sutherland specifies the works of Jacques-Auguste de Thou, Agrippa d'Aubigné, and Enrico Caterino Davila as the three most acclaimed histories of the era, all published in the first thirty years of the 17th century.113 These men all had some personal acquaintance with Catherine, but were of contrasting social and cultural backgrounds; de Thou was a French historian, and president of the Paris Parlement in 1595,114 d'Aubigné a French

Calvinist poet,115 and Davila an Italian historian who fought in the French Wars of

109 Sutherland, 45. 110 Sutherland, 45. 111 Sutherland, 46. 112 Sutherland, 46. 113 Sutherland, 46. 114 “Jacques-Auguste de Thou,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed November 6, 2013, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/593465/Jacques-Auguste-de-Thou. 115 “Agrippa d'Aubigné (1552-1630),” Éditions Arfuyen, accessed November 6, 2013, http://www.arfuyen.fr/html/ficheauteur.asp?id_aut=1165. 30

Religion for Catherine.116 According to Sutherland, the emerging legend of wicked Queen Catherine began quietly in the 17th century, focusing on her supposed ambition, and reached new heights in the 18th century, when her treachery and lust for personal gain were added to the list of her evil qualities.117

She argues that her reputation as a truly evil monarch was cemented by the second half of the same century.118

The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage, written by Janet Glenn

Gray, a professor in the Women and Gender Studies department at the College of

New Jersey,119 discusses the daily challenges Huguenots faced living in France.

They faced constant discrimination from Catholic forces throughout the country, but found a surprising ally in Catherine de' Medici, according to the author.120

After an official count requested by Catherine, 2,150 Huguenot churches were cited as existing in France.121 Catherine's stance on the Huguenots was most certainly influenced by the sheer volume of their population, as their support could ensure a more stable throne for her and her children. As argued by Gray,

Catherine used religion as a political pawn, as she was not herself religious.122

The author uses this to explain why Catherine believed she could mend the rift that existed between Catholics and Huguenots at the colloquy at Poissy, an occasion on which she underestimated what influence each church carried

116 “Enrico Caterino Davila,” Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, accessed November 6, 2013, http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/d/enrico_caterino_davila.html. 117 Sutherland, 47. 118 Sutherland, 47-48. 119 “Women and Gender Studies,” The College of New Jersey, accessed December 22nd, 2013, http://wgs.pages.tcnj.edu/people/faculty/. 120 Gray, 61. 121 Gray, 77. 122 Gray, 102. 31 internationally, as well as the difficulty of her task.123

Though she acknowledges that the colloquy was a failure, Gray does not discuss the event as a political blundering of Catherine's. Gray argues that

Catherine, as is apparent in her attempt at consolidating both churches, consistently sought to create a stable kingdom, which would in turn provide her with a stable throne. As explanation as to why Catherine arguably resorted to poison and assassins as a means of disposing of her enemies, the author offers the following: “She sensed her precarious situation due to the lack of a strong sovereign, so she pursued policies that were makeshift, expedient and deceitful.”124 Catherine's thirst for stability is also what drove her to decide that

Coligny and the other Huguenot leaders must die.125

While acknowledging that Catherine played a role, Gray also does not condemn her to the entire blame of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, but rather discusses a combination of contributing factors. As the royal family,

Charles IX excluded, became wary of Coligny, there was an increasing response from the Huguenots of Paris against the guards who were becoming increasingly numerous across the city. It was this increasing violence, not Catherine's personal vengeance against the faith, that Gray argues moved Catherine and her advisors to decide that the Huguenot leaders, not the entire people themselves, must be eliminated.126

123 Gray, 103. 124 Gray, 101. 125 Gray, 132-133. 126 Gray, 135. 32

It was her son Charles IX, however, that gave the order to kill the

Huguenots en masse, as a section from Anjou's memoir included by Gray denotes.

“Since we found it advisable for [Coligny] to be killed, he too wanted it, but also the death of all the Huguenots of France, so that none would remain to reproach him later.”127 Gray uses this piece as evidence, yet it must be noted that it came from Henry of Anjou, who was arguably Catherine's favourite son,128 and therefore may not be accurate. However accurate this source, Gray argues that the massacre began with specific Huguenots killed by Anjou's forces, and continued after the mob in Paris became enraged.129 Gray, by including this evidence, does not prescribe to the belief that Catherine ordered a mass execution of Huguenots.

Discussing the period after Henry II's death, “Catherine de' Medici as

Artemisia,” a chapter within Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual

Difference in Early Modern Europe written by Sheila Ffolliott, discusses the image Catherine had to sculpt of herself to ensure that she be seen as the only legitimate choice for the regency of her young son, Charles IX.130 According to

Ffolliott, a professor of art history at the University of Pennsylvania who has spoken about and published work on Catherine de' Medici,131 France would not bend easily to Catherine, as the ancient Salic Law had ensured that no woman could rule France by herself;132 it was therefore essential for Catherine to create what Ffolliott describes as an iconography of power. “In the ritualized world that

127 Gray, 136-137. 128 Gray, 131. 129 Gray, 141-143. 130 Ffolliott, 228. 131 “Sheila Ffolliott,” The Medici Archive Project, accessed December 21st, 2013, http://www.medici.org/board-trustees/sheila-ffoliott. 132 Ffolliott, 228. 33 was the French court, the queen mother now needed her own iconography of power to articulate the active role she intended to play and to establish her with her public.”133 The black clothing she wore both in everyday life and in her portraits solidified her status as a widow and, as argued by Ffolliott, forged a permanent link with the deceased Henry.134 As a woman, Catherine had to legitimize herself as a contemporary to other monarchs of the age.

Ffilliott also argues that Catherine used her status as a widow and mother to enhance her image, and created a comparison between herself and the story of

Artemisia, the widowed wife of Mausolus and Queen of Caria in the 4th century

B.C.135 As a ruler, Artemisia was said to possess the ideal qualities of a woman, yet the intelligence of a man, which allowed her to govern effectively.136 “She proved the perfect prototype for Catherine in that she both dramatically mourned the loss of her husband – the rightful monarch – and stood as an authoritative ruler in his stead.”137 The story was altered to include daily activities of Artemisia that mirrored Catherine's own, and was depicted in tapestries where the public could take notice; such depictions included her governing of the kingdom after her husband's death and caring for her son, a character who was invented to correspond with Charles IX.138 Artemisia and Catherine, through her intended comparison, were thus seen as exceptional female rulers, who transcended the general inferiority of women.139

133 Ffolliott, 228. 134 Ffolliott, 228. 135 Ffolliott, 230. 136 Ffolliott, 232. 137 Ffolliott, 230. 138 Ffolliott, 232. 139 Ffolliott, 233. 34

Modern Historical Fiction

Authors of fictional works who depict Catherine in sixteenth-century

France diverge on their views of her character. The year in which they were written does not seem to have an effect on the opinion they possess; the opinion seems to rest rather entirely with which historical perspective they chose to convey through their work. Some, such as Honoré de Balzac, offer an understanding and dynamic portrayal of Catherine, seen as a woman who oversaw her children's every need and ruled France with an unmatched capability. Others, such as Jean Plaidy, choose to paint a portrait of a manipulative, evil woman who was Catherine, interested solely in her advancement through the positions of her sons, and who resorted to black magic to ensure her success. Though such works do not carry the same critical weight as historical texts, they are nevertheless crucial to Catherine's portrait, as their choice of what type of character to represent holds sway with the opinion of readers everywhere.

Catherine de’ Medici has also enjoyed a revival in the popular culture of the 20th and 21st centuries, most clearly in fictitious literature. Written in 1951,

Jean Plaidy's novel Madame Serpent is reflective of the belief that Catherine was an overly-ambitious villain. Plaidy, whose real name is Eleanor Hibbert, also used such pseudonyms as Victoria Holt and Philippa Carr.140 Her story begins as

Catherine arrives in France, making the switch from the Medici duchessina to the dauphinesse of France.141 Plaidy depicts Catherine as a bitter young bride, who

140 Elizabeth Walter, “Obituary: Jean Paidy,” The Independent, January 20th, 1993, accessed December 22nd, 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-jean-plaidy- 1479699.html. 141 Jean Plaidy, Madame Serpent (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1951), 10. 35 became brooding in nature due to her husband's affair with the seemingly divine

Diane de Poitiers, his mistress until he died.142 Plaidy emphasizes the anger this relationship cultivated in Catherine, and describes how it changed her character.

“She scarcely recognized herself. … The only brightness [in her face] was the blood where her sharp teeth had bitten the flesh of her lips. Her eyes were cruel with hatred. She was an older Catherine now.”143 This quotation reflects the kind of portrait Plaidy sought to create of Catherine; though she actively acknowledged the role of Henry's affair, Plaidy harboured no sympathies for Catherine, and used the legend of her wicked nature as inspiration for the character. In her fictional account, Plaidy emphasizes this moment, when Catherine learned of Henry's love of Diane de Poitiers, as the awakening of her true self.144

Carolyn Meyer, an American author who has written on other royal figures such as Elizabeth I, Mary Tudor, and Anne Boleyn, offers a portrait of a young

Catherine full of courage, tenacity and compassion. Catherine's humanist education is emphasized,145 along with her precarious life as the last remaining

Medici. “Before I was a month old, both my mother and my father were dead. Yet

I have survived and endured. Not everyone is pleased about that.”146 She also reflects upon Catherine's legendary capabilities of persuasion, and writes about exchanges between Catherine and Alessandro, the bastard son of Pope Clement

VII, who treated her unkindly and criticized her beauty.147 It is in this instant,

142 Plaidy, 81. 143 Plaidy, 113. 144 Plaidy, 115. 145 Carolyn Meyer, Duchessina (Boston: Graphia, 2007), 22. 146 Meyer, 1. 147 Meyer, 25. 36 according to Meyer's portrayal, that Catherine discovered she would have to create ways to get what she wanted, rather than rely on feminine charms.

In her novel, Meyer also highlights the unequal status of men and women in 16th century Europe, a theme that haunted Catherine throughout her entire life.

Citing an occasion when Catherine had returned to live at Palazzo Medici, Meyer depicts an instance when Catherine's tutor has ceased her reading lessons, a move supported by the belief that too much knowledge was dangerous in women.148

This is reflected in her depiction of Catherine's reunion with Pope Clement also, whose overwhelming display of affection in front of Rome was followed by months of little communication. “After our first emotional meeting, my 'uncle' - or whatever he was – paid little attention to me.”149 Meyer continues by outlining several examples of Clement exerting control over Catherine, attempting to mould her into a desirable candidate for marriage, preferably for his political gain.150 It is evident that Meyer's portrayal of Catherine is a sympathetic one, supported by her focus on Catherine's sombre childhood and her life as Clement's pawn.

The Devil's Queen, written by Jeanne Kalogridis and published in 2009, gives a startlingly dark portrayal of Catherine de' Medici. Kalogridis is not entirely unsympathetic, but her novel does not look to extract compassionate feelings from its reader. It offers instead a different kind of depiction of Catherine, not one of a hopeless female, but rather a desperate individual driven by the need to protect her husband.151 The novel describes several occasions when Catherine

148 Meyer, 78-79. 149 Meyer, 138. 150 Meyer, 141. 151 Jeanne Kalogridis, The Devil's Queen (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009), 217. 37 herself practiced astrology. There is much historical evidence to suggest that she did indeed rely on astrologers and other magicians to aid her in matters, such as conceiving a child, and to predict the future, yet none that suggest she practiced such magic herself.

This story is a continuation of the narrative which suggests Catherine was a darkly manipulative wife, queen, and mother. However, it is interesting that

Kalogridis should suggest Catherine practiced magic to help others, such as her husband. The historical record is more reflective of her wishing to help herself in such matters as childbirth. Nevertheless, Catherine's desperation to protect her husband is evident through the author's description of the means she was willing to go to in an effort to secure his safety; before instructing Catherine on how to achieve her desired goals, the magician Ruggieri says to Catherine, “I warn you,

Madame la Dauphine, that to get blood, you must give blood. ...Here is where a strong will and a strong stomach are needed, for it is not your blood of which we speak.”152 Catherine's yearning for the assurance of the stability of herself and her family is evident, though Kalogridis has chosen to construct it within a terrible scenario.

Due to the male-dominated arena that is the 'great man' historiography,

Catherine de' Medici has suffered greatly in the historical record. The historical narrative of Catherine's evil nature was a by-product of this method of historiography, which authors such as Francis Watson, Sir John Neale, and Milton

152 Kalogridis, 217. 38

Waldman followed blindly. In 1922, Paul Van Dyke published his biography

Catherine de Medicis, based solely upon evidence gathered through primary source research. His attempt at creating an accurate analysis of Catherine's life did not eradicate the 'great man' biographers, but acted instead as the beginning of a movement that grew as historians sought to understand Catherine within her social context, among which historians such as Jean Héritier and Janet Glenn Gale are included. Catherine's dedication to the throne, though she was not always upon it herself, is evident through the skill with which she ruled and exerted influence over France.

Chapter 2

Beginnings, the Regency and Establishment of Power

This chapter will examine how Catherine de' Medici rose to power and established her influence in France. While serving as Queen Consort, Queen

Regent, and Queen Mother of France, Catherine de' Medici used motherhood as her main source of power. It was only once her son Charles IX became king, and she his regent, that she was able to establish her place as the major power player of the French Royal Court. Her power continued after her regency ended, as she was able to continue to exert influence as the mother of the king through the use of political imagery, linking her to her deceased husband and living sons.

Catherine used these tactics to establish herself due to the overwhelming barriers that existed, such as Salic law, her role as wife of the king, and her secondary status to Henry's mistress Diane de Poitiers, which inhibited her from holding a position of power in her own name. Catherine successfully overcame these barriers by cementing her status as Henry II's widow, remaining permanently clad in black and mourning her husband for all to see in public, and, through the use of her status as a mother, presenting herself as the only eligible candidate for the regency of Charles IX.

As dictated by Salic Law, no woman in France was allowed to inherit and rule over land in her own name in France. When her husband Henry II died in

1559, Catherine de' Medici became the head of the government of France in the name of her son, Charles IX, who was still a minor and too young to rule. She was not Queen in her own right, yet successfully petitioned the King's private council to become Queen Regent. To establish herself as regent, Catherine created a new avenue through which a woman could legitimately rule France: as a mother. She

41 drew her legitimacy as a queen from her motherhood and based her regency upon keeping the name of her son and his position as King both strong and secure. As

Queen Regent, Catherine continued to keep her motherhood at the core of her political efforts, ensuring that her political authority continued after her regency ended.

To establish why Catherine chose to use motherhood as her main power source, I will examine her origins, beginning with her life in Italy and then in

France, as the betrothed of Henry. Next, I will discuss Catherine's marriage to

Henry, a period during which she wielded little to no power as Queen Consort and often fell second to Henry's mistress, Diane de Poitiers. The latter half of the marriage will also be analyzed as a period during which Catherine exercised some limited authority as Henry's appointed regent during his absences. Finally, I will discuss the matriarchal image Catherine forged for herself, as the wife of the deceased king, mother of the current king, and mother of France, and the first measures she took to establish her authority.

Early Life

Catherine was born into the most powerful family in Florence, the

Medicis. Her father, Lorenzo de' Medici, was the Duke of Urbino and grandson of

Lorenzo the Magnificent.153 Her lineage also provided her with connections to

France; her mother was none other than Madeleine de La Tour d'Auvergne, a

153 Francis Watson, The Life and Times of Catherine de' Medici (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1935), 9. 42 descendant of the powerful Bourbon family.154 Aware of the stigmas associated with their bourgeois origins, Catherine's great-grandfather Lorenzo the

Magnificent created a duchy in Florence, which became a hereditary position within the Medici family. In addition, Lorenzo also commissioned the creation of a grand family history to emphasize the glorious history of the Medici family.155

One year after the return of Lorenzo and Madeleine to Florence from successfully securing the Duchy of Urbino, Catarina Maria Romola de' Medici was born the 13th of April, 1519.156 Within the following month, both Catherine's mother and father were dead, leaving her in the care of various family members and assorted convents throughout Italy over the next fourteen years.157 While she stayed with her aunt Clarice Strozzi in Rome, Catherine received a proper Medici education beginning at a young age, and was constantly reminded of her high position and the responsibilities it entailed.158 She was constantly referred to as duchessina, or little duchess, and was treated as such by her family and caretakers.159

After considering several marriage alliances for Catherine, Pope Clement

VII, a second cousin of Catherine's who claimed publicly to be her uncle, settled on a match within the royal family of France, the Valois, who had been in power since 1328.160 Clement and Francis I, king of France, met in Nice at the city of

154 Watson, 9. 155 Watson, 9. 156 Watson, 15-17. 157 Watson, 18. 158 Watson, 18. 159 Watson, 31. 160 “Valois Dynasty,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed February 26th, 2014, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/622379/Valois-Dynasty. 43

Marseilles in 1533 to discuss a potential marriage alliance.161 Initial discussions of a match between the Medicis and the Valois had begun as early as 1524; it was not until this latest meeting, however, that it was determined that Catherine would marry Henry, the second son of Francis.162 Catherine was not a princess, but the match between her and Henry was attractive for many reasons. Catherine's relation to Clement VII and the political ally it provided was the most crucial element of the match, which was taking place at a time when political turmoil, particularly between Italy, France and the Holy Roman Empire, was frequent throughout Europe.163

Marriage to Henry

The marriage between Catherine and Henry was performed by none other than Pope Clement VII at the Marseilles Cathedral on October 28th, 1533.164 Such a momentous occasion should have been followed by positive events for

Catherine, but it was not. Even after the wedding, it did not seem that Catherine was safe in France.165 Popular opinion dictated that her marriage to Henry was a mésalliance to the French, meaning that it offered them no benefit. Many courtiers justified this belief through Catherine's supposed inferiority, given that her family was not from royal, but rather bourgeois, origins.166 Though they had

161 Jean Héritier, Charlotte Haldane, trans., Catherine de Medici (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1963), 29. 162 Héritier, 30. 163 Héritier, 29. 164 Williamson, 32. 165 Robert J. Knecht, The French Renaissance Court: 1483-1589 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 250. 166 Knecht, Renaissance, 250. 44 risen far, the Medicis were not accepted by France as a part of any European nobility due to the continued stigmatization of Italy's elevated merchant class.167

This opinion was present throughout the French court; even little Mary Stuart, eventual wife of Francis II and Queen Consort of France, once spoke of Catherine as a “'merchant's daughter.'”168 Pope Clement had recently died, a short eleven months after the wedding, and the alliance between France and Italy died with him. Due to the combination of these factors, Catherine's role in France had thus become one of little importance.169

Catherine could not shake her bourgeois stigma, and the nobility in France were not yet willing to accept her as their equal.170 The inherent difficulty faced by the Medici family as a recent addition to the European nobility is addressed in a passage of The Prince, a political treatise written by Niccolò Machiavelli that was originally intended for Catherine's father, Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici.171 In one section of his treatise, Machiavelli provides insight into reasons why the bourgeoisie, and even their descendants, were stigmatized. He wrote: “Those who by good fortune only rise from mere private station to the dignity of princes have but little trouble in achieving that elevation, for they fly there as it were on wings; but their difficulties begin after they have been placed in that position.”172 These

167 Héritier, 67. 168 Paul Van Dyke, Catherine de Médicis, vol. I (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922), 181, accessed January 27th, 2014, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049893566;view=1up;seq=209. 169 Héritier, 35. 170 Héritier, 35. 171 Vincent Barnett, “Niccolo Machiavelli: the Cunning Critic of Political Reason,” History Review (2006), accessed February 26th, 2014, http://www.historytoday.com/vincent- barnett/niccolo-machiavelli-%E2%80%93-cunning-critic-political-reason. 172 The Prince, 24. 45 difficulties began for Catherine upon her arrival in France, and would plague her throughout the entirety of her marriage to Henry. Her secondary status was continually emphasized by Henry's constant attention to his mistress, Diane de

Poitiers.

Catherine combated her reputation as a mésalliance by remaining quiet and obedient at the French court. Her new task was to ensure that she remained in the royal family's good graces, lest she be seen as a burden and sent back to Italy.

Catherine's submissiveness ensured her popularity among the French royal family, assuring her continued place as Henry's wife and member of the French court.173

She understood that it was essential to maintain an uncontroversial presence at court while also fulfilling her duties as wife to Henry. According to Jean Héritier,

Catherine “understood immediately that she mattered less than nothing and in consequence [was] self-effacing and submissive. It is thus entirely to her own credit to have entered the House of France.”174 While attempting to secure her place at court, Catherine had to navigate a tricky route. While seeking to maintain the favour of the royal family, she also sought to ensure she not draw too much attention to herself, a skill she had developed out of necessity during her youth in

Italy.175 Her principal goal at the French court was to avoid being seen as an intruder.176

Though Catherine successfully avoided becoming a burden to the royal court of France, she was merely biding her time, as she had not yet accomplished

173 Héritier, 35. 174 Héritier, 35. 175 Héritier, 35. 176 Héritier, 35. 46 the important task of winning over her husband. Due to the potential status of her marriage as a mésalliance, this was of huge concern to her. The marriage legally made him the person with whom she was closest in France, yet Henry was the one person whom Catherine could not win over with her wit, or her charm, or even her submissiveness.177 She seemed to be of little importance to him, as he favoured his mistress, Diane de Poitiers, above her.178 Diane de Poitiers was able to exert extensive influence over Henry, as she had been in his life since he was but eleven years old, when Francis I had asked her to mentor him as a sort of mother figure.179

Despite their seventeen-year age gap, Henry quickly fell in love with the older Diane, and had little regard for Catherine as a result.180 As argued by Hugh

Ross Williamson, Diane and Henry shared “a devoted love which, despite the disparity of their ages, lasted for twenty-two years and ensured that when Henry became king it was not Catherine de' Medici but Diane de Poitiers, the uncrowned queen, who dictated France's policy.”181 Instead of concerning herself with her husband and his mistress, Catherine established her influence in small ways at the

French court in an effort to avoid being cast aside or sent back to Italy.182

As a favourite of Francis I, Catherine was invited to join his Petite bande, a group of women with whom he rode and discussed various topics of interest.183

Francis' invitation was a significant gesture, as he invited only his favourites, who

177 Hugh Ross Williamson, Catherine de' Medici (New York: The Viking Press, 1973), 38. 178 Williamson, 38. 179 Williamson, 38. 180 Williamson, 38. 181 Williamson, 38. 182 Knecht, Renaissance, 15. 183 Watson, 74. 47 in turn held places of great prominence at court.184 In contrast from the other ladies who were chosen due to their great beauty, Francis invited Catherine to join his riding party because of the intellectually stimulating company she provided.185

She soon rose among the most important of these ladies, and was the first woman at the French court to ride independently, a practice which was revolutionary at the time.186 All of these components came together to ensure the growth of

Catherine's security at the French court.

After the death of Francis I, Catherine and Henry became King and Queen

Consort of France, respectively. Though they had both become monarchs of

France, they did not both hold official power. The difference of power between the positions of king and queen is evident in the documentation of King Henry's arrival to Paris on June 16th, 1547. While the king was accompanied by numerous attendants and rode into the city, the queen is featured much further down the list, rather than riding alongside him, cementing her role as consort rather than partner.187 In addition, the coronations of the kings and queens were held in separate buildings. Kings of France were crowned at Notre-Dame, while their queens were crowned at the abbey of Saint-Denis.188 At this point, the Reims

Cathedral at Notre-Dame had become the most important religious site in France, while the abbey of Saint-Denis was of lesser importance, further emphasizing the queen's secondary status.189

184 Watson, 74. 185 Watson, 74. 186 Watson, 74. 187 I.D. MacFarlane, The Entry of Henry II Into into Paris: 16 June 1549 (Binghamton: Centre for Medieval & Early Renaissance Studies, 1982). 188 MacFarlane. 189 MacFarlane. 48

The symbolism of the respective processions also served to signal a difference in status between the king and his queen. En route to his own coronation, Henry II passed Saint-Denis, which was situated far enough from the centre of the city that it was among the first buildings passed during the processional. In a documentation of his route into the city, Henry “entered Paris, the capital of his kingdom, by the portal of Saint-Denis, and travelled by the road

... leading to the church of Notre-Dame.”190 It is significant that the coronations of queens in France occurred away from the city's centre, indicating that they were not as significant as that of the king. The coronations also took place two days apart; Henry was crowned King of France June 16th, and Catherine Queen on June

18th.191 As the king and ruler of France, Henry, his retinue and his attendants were all clothed in fabrics trimmed with gold, while the Queen, serving merely as consort, was trimmed in silver along with her attendants.192

After the coronation ceremonies, Henry and Catherine settled into their respective positions of power. In addition to the limited power held by Queen

Consorts of France during this period, there were several limitations in place which impeded her power. The first such limitation was Diane de Poitiers, Henry's longstanding mistress, who, newly created Duchesse de Valentinois by Henry, was more influential than ever.193 The second limitation presented itself through the

Guise family, who would become Catherine's competition for the regency of

Charles IX, and who also grew in prominence during this period as the allies of

190 MacFarlane. 191 MacFarlane. 192 MacFarlane. 193 Williamson, 61. 49

Diane.194 Henry's relationship and commitment to Diane resulted in the third of

Catherine's constraints, which was her inability to bear children for the first ten years of their marriage. On the 19th of January 1544, Catherine finally accomplished what had evaded her for so long, due to Henry's unwavering attention for Diane, giving birth to her first child, Francis II.195

The nature of Catherine's devotion to her children has been subject to much historical debate. Many historians have prescribed to the historiographical myth that Catherine manipulated her children to ensure her own success. Quite to the contrary, as emphasized by Paul Van Dyke, Catherine was a doting mother who protected her children from being objectified by the factions of the French court.196 The intimate relationship she shared with her children is documented in a letter she wrote in February of 1544, addressed to her cousin Cosimo I de' Medici,

Duke of Tuscany. In the letter, Catherine wrote: “Estant asseuree que cest lun des plus grans plaisirs que ayez eu de longtemps que de lavoir sceu correspondant a celluy que jay toujours eu de votre exaltation et grandeur et de tous ceulx de notre maison.”197 Here, Catherine is joyful at the honour brought to her and her family by the birth of her first child. This occasion was momentous not only for her but for France, as the King and Queen now had an heir to the throne.

194 Williamson, 61. 195 Williamson, 49. 196 Van Dyke, vol i, 9. 197 Translation: “It is certain that this is one of the greatest pleasures had in a long time by this correspondent as is your continued exaltation and greatness and from everyone in our house.” C. Charles Casati, ed., “Catherine de Médicis, ” Lettres royaux et lettres missives inédites (Paris: Librairie académique, 1877), 64, accessed March 23rd, 2014, http://ia700304.us.archive.org/3/items/lettresroyauxet00casauoft/lettresroyauxet00casauoft.pdf. 50

The initial years of their marriage were marked by an imbalance of power, but Henry eventually learned to trust Catherine. His growing trust is evident through his decision to name her as temporary head of state during his absences.

Catherine had her first experience as a political figurehead in France during the first of Henry's absences from court. On February 12, 1552, Henry announced to the Paris Parlement, France's chief judicial body comprised of appointed judges,198 that Catherine would rule as regent and head of the governing council while he was away at war, and that they were all to obey her as they did Henry.199

At this point, Catherine was technically ruling as regent for her son Francis, yet she held little to no power.200 This regency gave Catherine very little experience exercising political authority, as its main purpose was to lend more focus to the future role of Francis as King of France.201 Catherine held minimal control over the affairs of the country while the council she presided over exercised real authority.202 The council members included Marshal Saint-André, a favourite of

Henry's, the cardinal of Lorraine, the duke of Aumale, and the bishop of

Coutances.203 Catherine ruled strictly as an adjunct and functioned as a mere symbol of authority.204

198 “Parlement,” The Free Dictionary, accessed February 26th, 2014, http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Parlement+of+Paris. 199 Katherine Crawford, “Catherine de Medicis and the Performance of Political Motherhood,” The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 31, no. 3 (2000): 651, accessed February 26th, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2671075. 200 Crawford, 651. 201 Crawford, 652. 202 Crawford, 652. 203 Crawford, 652. 204 Crawford, 652. 51

Henry soon grew to trust his wife even more, and appointed her regent a second time. Beginning August 15th, 1553, Catherine ruled as Francis' regent while Henry went to war with the Hapsburgs.205 During this regency, Catherine held a stronger position of power, as indicated by the members of her council, which this time included the keeper of the seals who responded directly to

Catherine.206 Her responsibilities now included “interviewing ambassadors, writing to the Parlement at Paris, advising municipalities,” and other royal duties, as well as overseeing her children.207 This second regency acted as her apprenticeship to power, teaching her how to establish legitimate control while continuing to break the barriers which sought to inhibit her success, such as

Henry's relationship with Diane and her place as Queen Consort. Catherine worked with what she had to establish herself, using her role as mother to acquire political influence. Her role as Queen Mother prevailed, even during her term as

Queen Regent, as her main route to success.

Death of Henry

After a fatal jousting accident, Henry died on July 10th, 1559.208 At first,

Henry's death meant more challenges for Catherine. After his death, she faced a crossroads between her current and future roles within the royal schema of

France. Her son Francis II, newly married to Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, was

205 Crawford, 652. 206 Crawford, 652. 207 Van Dyke, vol. 1, 69. 208 Frederic J. Baumgartner, Henry II: King of France 1547-1559 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1988), 252. 52 crowned King at the tender age of 15. Because of his youth and supposed frailty, the new king was easily manipulated by court factions.209 Catherine had little to no political influence over her son during this period mainly due to the powerful influence of the Guise family, who held the king firmly within its grasp.210 This faction included two of the king's main advisors: the cardinal of Lorraine and the duke of Guise, who were related to the king's wife, Mary Stuart, through her mother Mary of Guise.211 These powerful uncles of the royal couple bore no relation to Catherine, and shut her out from the political arena they dominated.

Despite her lack of political influence during this period, Catherine forged her image in other ways. As a woman in France, a country ruled by outdated Salic

Law, Catherine knew that she would never be able to establish an independent rule. She therefore took advantage of a special set of circumstances which provided her with a solid platform upon which she could craft her image. The first of these circumstances was the death of her husband, Henry II. She looked to form a permanent link between herself and her dead husband and, taking steps to ensure she remain his wife in the eyes of the public, used her status as a widow to create a carefully sculpted appearance of devotion to her late husband.212

Catherine far exceeded the traditional expectations of a dowager queen and widow, which were to remain in the mourning chamber for 40 days, wear mourning clothes for two years, and, as subtly encouraged, not to remarry. In true

Machiavellian fashion, Catherine successfully manipulated these traditional

209 Crawford, 653. 210 Crawford, 253. 211 Crawford, 253. 212 Crawford, 644. 53

French mourning customs and used them as political imagery to establish herself as Henry's devoted widow. Catherine mourned publicly rather than privately, emphasized her everlasting love for her deceased spouse, and continued to wear black for the rest of her life.213 All of this served as a constant reminder and statement of her loyalty to Henry, and was among the many contributors to her success as Queen Regent and Queen Mother. As Catherine continued to emphasize her role as wife and widow, the second special circumstance which led to her political power unfolded: the death of King Francis II, and the resulting coronation of her second son Charles IX which led to her establishment as Queen

Regent. In addition to the political imagery which tied her to Henry, Catherine worked to cement her role as Charles' mother in an effort to legitimize her claim to the regency.

The image that Catherine cultivated as Queen Mother was strong because of her very real skills at being a parent. After the death of Francis II, Catherine moved quickly to protect Charles IX from the manipulation of the court factions.

She knew that the factions would seek to dominate Charles the moment Francis died, and so spent the night in Charles' room after Francis' death to prevent any domination.214 According to Paul Van Dyke, “the day after his brother's death, the young King summoned the princes of the blood, the Cardinals, the Dukes, the chief officers of state, and the members of the privy council to his room and announced that he desired them to do what his mother would command them,

213 Crawford, 657. 214 Paul Van Dyke, Catherine de Médicis, vol. I (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922), 181, accessed January 27th, 2014, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049893566;view=1up;seq=209. 54 with the advice of the council.”215 This was the beginning of Catherine's bid for the regency.

Regency

It soon became of primary importance to establish a regency in Charles' name as he was too young to rule independently. As stated by historian Katherine

Crawford, tradition dictated that the regent be chosen by the king's body of advisors, all of whom were male.216 Catherine paid no mind to this practice and chose to construct her own platform for the regency, based on her position as

Queen Mother.217 It was surprisingly easy for her to achieve this, as all potential male candidates for the regency were caught in political turmoil. As the first

Prince of the Blood, Antoine of Navarre was first among the potential candidates for the regency and thus Catherine's main competition. He was, however, in no place to take on such a role, as he had recently become politically discredited due to his brother, Louis I de Bourbon, prince of Condé,218 who was awaiting execution at the time of Francis' death.219 Instead of pursuing the position himself,

Navarre moved to support Catherine as regent and became a powerful ally.

Catherine appeared before the private council of Charles IX on December 6th,

1560 and was named as the head of the government, a decision which was finalized December 20th of the same year.220

215 Van Dyke, 181. 216 Crawford, 653. 217 Crawford, 653. 218 “Anthony of Bourbon,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed January 26th, 2014, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27404/Anthony-Of-Bourbon. 219 Crawford, 660. 220 Crawford, 660-662. 55

Catherine's bid for power was successful yet came as a shock to many of her contemporaries, who were accustomed to her quiet and obedient character throughout her marriage to Henry II. Van Dyke states that “the dominant trait to her character, the will to power – had found circumstances so unfavourable to its development and had been kept so resolutely in the background, that its very existence was scarcely suspected even by those who stood nearest her.”221

Catherine's campaign, however, supported by the imagery proclaiming her as devoted widow and mother, successfully dispelled any doubts of her lack of will.222 Despite the ease with which she succeeded to the position of Queen

Regent, Catherine did face opposition. Navarre had promised to support her claim to the regency, yet was in negotiations with the Estates General, who believed that a woman had no place serving as regent. During their election of 1561, the Estates declared on behalf of Navarre that he did not have the right to refuse his appointment as regent; this was done in an attempt to discredit Catherine and place Navarre on the throne.223 This movement was resolved when Navarre and his recently exonerated brother Condé signed an agreement with Catherine in which they declared their loyalty and renounced all claims to the regency.224

Catherine also faced stiff competition from the Guise faction, which had been expected. Since their influence had increased during the short reign of

Francis II, the Guises had been expected to continue as the most powerful house

221 Van Dyke, vol. 1, 180. 222 Van Dyke, vol. 1, 180. 223 Crawford, 665-666. 224 Crawford, 665-666. 56 in France by assuming the regency.225 A history of conflict between mothers and uncles in the matter of regency existed in France, which had reached a peak during the reign of Charles VI at the end of the 14th century.226 However strong their platforms were, the opposition did not succeed in removing Catherine from the regency. Though she was the first woman to have promoted herself as regent,

Catherine was not the first royal mother to rule in the name of her son. There was a distinctive increase of female political power during the reign of Francis I, who, claiming to trust no one else with the duty, appointed his mother Louise of Savoy as administrator of the realm on two occasions.227 Her role as temporary head of state was justified through the common held belief that the maternal love she bore for her son enabled her to rule more effectively.228 As a mother, it was also thought that Louise would rule effectively as a regent to ensure the good name and image of her son remained intact.229

This example of female authority certainly served as inspiration for

Catherine, who used motherhood as the main justification for her place in French politics. Catherine's years of hard work spent crafting an image of herself as a leading woman of France had finally paid off. Crawford argues that “with no adult monarch to designate the size and shape of the queen mother's access,

Catherine was free to utilize a carefully accumulated reservoir of positive sentiment about her capacity as a good woman, widow, and mother to construct

225 Van Dyke, vol. 1, 180. 226 Crawford, 646. 227 Crawford, 649. 228 Crawford, 650. 229 Crawford, 650. 57 her political claim.”230 Catherine had developed what Crawford refers to as a fund of good behaviour, a concept entailing the repeated assertion of her impeccable status of devoted wife, grieving widow and protective mother, all of which received even more praise considering her husband's devotion to his mistress,

Diane de Poitiers.231 Catherine adhered to and even excelled at these expectations to ensure the security of her place among the political schema of France.232

As regent, Catherine sought to remain securely on the throne and extend her power. Her position as mother of France was accepted, as motherhood was a traditional female role; people were thus largely accepting of the power she exerted.233 As previously mentioned, emphasis was placed on her status as wife and widow, but was concentrated most strongly on her role as a mother.

Catherine's motherhood allowed her to play a larger role in politics, especially in matters concerning her children, including the king.234 As Louise of Savoy had done before her, Catherine justified her role as regent through her affection for her son.235 This marked the first occasion that the justification of maternal love as a source of power was used by a woman, and by the regent herself.236

Catherine's confidence as regent is evident through the letters she wrote, as exemplified by her letter to a Monsieur de Villefrancon, lieutenant-general of the

Parlement of Burgundy, composed the 28th of December, 1560,237 a mere eight

230 Crawford, 653. 231 Crawford, 655. 232 Crawford, 644. 233 Crawford, 657. 234 Crawford, 657. 235 Crawford, 658. 236 Crawford, 658. 237 University of Toronto Libraries, “Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, publiées par Hector de La Ferrière” (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1880), 23, accessed January 26th, 2014, 58 days after her official appointment as Queen Regent. In this letter, Catherine writes with extreme confidence, drawing legitimacy from her position as the mother of the princes of France. She wrote:

Graces à Nostre Seigneur, il n'a pas laissé ce royaume dépourvu de legitimes et vrayz successeurs, dont je suis la mere, qui, pour le bien d'icelluy, prandray en main la charge du devoir qu'il fauldra rendre en l'administration qui y sera necessaire, par l'advis et bon conseil des princes et grands personnaiges dont il n'y a pas faulte.238

Catherine certainly included herself among those she referenced as official figures possessing no fault, and cemented her status as her son’s main adviser. This letter was one of many ways Catherine would begin to officially recognize her own power. She would next try her hand at balancing the unstable court factions that existed within France.

It was from her new position as Queen Regent that Catherine began addressing religious issues in France. Her key motive in remaining neutral on the subject of religion was to keep the various court factions, among which the Guise were the most powerful, at bay, which would effectively secure and increase her own power. The Guise faction was notoriously Catholic, and had supported the vicious persecution of Huguenots during the reign of Henry II while key members of another faction at the French court, the Bourbon family, most notably Condé, were Huguenots.239 The Montmorency family, among whom was included the

http://archive.org/stream/lettresdecatheri10cathuoft#page/n5/mode/2up. 238 Translation: 'Thanks be to God, he has not left this kingdom deprived of legitimate and true successors, of whom I am the mother, and who...will take the necessary work and administration he must complete in hand, through the advice and good council of princes and official figures who possess no fault,' “Lettres de Catherine de Médicis,” 23-24. 239 Gray, 102. 59 prestigious Anne, Constable of France, had ties to both faiths, but were largely

Catholic supporters.240 As these men were all key figures in French politics,

Catherine could not afford to ostracize any of them. Simultaneously, Catherine had to ensure that none of the factions was able to maintain too much power. The tensions that existed between these conflicting factions acted as inspiration for

Catherine in her attempt to resolve the greater tensions between Catholics and

Huguenots in France.

One of Catherine de' Medici's first significant endeavours on the subject of religious worship in France was the Colloquy of Poissy, held from September 9th until October 14th, 1561.241 Catherine's goal for the colloquy, named as such because church assemblies had been forbidden by the pope, was to achieve the permanent unification of Catholics and Huguenots in France through the creation of a legislative body called the National Council of the French Church.242 What

Catherine had not anticipated, however, was the complete failure of the colloquy, which ironically served to increase the divide between the divergent religious groups. Catherine underestimated the international significance of the religious conflict,243 as she herself did not see any major distinction between the two faiths.

Catherine viewed them instead as different interpretations of the same fundamental concept.244 As stated by Héritier, “Catherine de Medici was thinking of her policy of compassion; the theologians were only concerned with the true

240 Gray, 102. 241 Gray, 102. 242 Gray, 102. 243 Gray, 103. 244 Héritier, 165. 60 faith.”245 Catherine also did not foresee the possibility that the Colloquy's conclusions, had the two factions united as the National Council of the French

Church, could be overturned. Because the colloquy had not been arranged through either the Huguenot leaders in Geneva or the Papacy in Rome, any conciliation between the two groups would have been instantly reversed.246

Queen Mother

During her regency and continuing after it, Catherine de' Medici created a new definition of a queen mother, using existing political tensions to create and maintain her influence.247 Catherine presented herself as not only the Queen

Mother of Charles IX, but also of France. As she had attempted to do with the

Colloquy of Poissy, Catherine consistently sought to bring the court factions to terms with each other, often treating them as bickering children. Crawford states that Catherine “undid, at least partially, the incapacity ascribed to women as political actors in the French monarchy. She had to do this by basing her entitlement on fulfilling accepted feminine roles and then augmenting their content.”248 By exercising authority as the mother of both the King and of France,

Catherine made sure to not overstep traditional feminine roles, but rather to take advantage of them.

Having little to no power while her husband ruled France, Catherine's new-found status as the mother figure of France gave her access to more political

245 Héritier, 172. 246 Gray, 103. 247 Crawford, 644. 248 Crawford, 672. 61 influence than she had ever held as Queen Consort. She frequently wrote letters on behalf of her son, emphasizing her relationship with him and using her position as his mother to exert influence, as exemplified through a letter she wrote to the supposed Duke and master of Gennes on the 31st of August, 1572.249 As she writes to discuss the promotion of a knight, she specifies that she is merely reminding the Duke of Gennes of a recommendation already made by the king.250 She then goes on, however, to say how the completion of the matter would please her.

“Vous le veuillez recognoistre comme chevalier ayme et favorise de moi et comme bon citoyen de votre republique. Vous asseurant que tout ce que vous ferez en sa faveur me sera grandement agreable.”251 It is her own favour and not the king's that Catherine is emphasizing in this letter. Catherine's statement that this would please her also infers that, should the duke choose not to follow her reminder of the king's recommendation, she would be disappointed.

Even after the regency had ended, Catherine was able to maintain control over affairs of the state. As the kings of France during this period were plagued with weaknesses of the mind and body, Catherine was able and often expected to exert her influence as a mother over the court and council, who often decided and dictated policy without the king.252 Unfortunately for Catherine, she was not the only one who sought to dominate both the king and his council. The Guise family,

249 C. Charles Casati, ed., Lettres royaux et lettres missives inédites (Paris: Didier et C., Libraires- Editeurs, 1877), 28-29, accessed January 27th, 2014, http://ia700304.us.archive.org/3/items/lettresroyauxet00casauoft/lettresroyauxet00casauoft.pdf. 250 Lettres royaux, 28-29. 251 Translation: “You will recognize that as a cherished and favourite knight of mine, as well as a good and loyal citizen ... everything you do in his favour would be greatly pleasing to me.” Lettres royaux, 28-29. 252 Martyn Rady, France: Renaissance, Religion and Recovery, 1494-1610 (London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., 1988), 65. 62 whose overwhelming public support had made them the biggest and the most threatening court faction to the Valois family, also sought to dominate the royal council, and would pose a problem for Catherine for the duration of her life.253

Catherine's reign as Queen Consort, Queen Regent and Queen Mother was subject to a specific pattern of events relating specifically to her hatred for the

Guise faction, which consisted of a search for conciliation, leading to Guise hostility and war, followed once more by the quest for a settlement.254 While the

Guise were never able to dominate Charles as they had Francis II before him, they were able to secure their political power through the means of massive public support, which came largely from the fervent Catholics of Paris.255 As Queen

Mother, Catherine sought to solidify her power and that of her son through the control of the various factions that existed at court. These factions were divided both religiously and by family, and presented a very real problem to the throne.

Catherine therefore approached this situation as she had approached her claim to the regency. By asserting herself as matriarch, Catherine viewed the disputing factions as disobedient children and sought to make them behave.

Catherine's attempts to reconcile French court factions have, however, been heavily criticized by 20th century historians such as Sir John Ernest Neale.

As an expert on the age of religious wars in Europe, Neale argued that Catherine knew nothing of statecraft. “Her vitality was boundless: she was always ready, with tireless energy, to tackle every difficulty that arose. But she lacked any grasp

253 Rady, 65. 254 Rady, 65. 255 Richard S. Dunn, The Age of Religious Wars, 1559-1715 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1979), 33. 63 of principles, and was apt to see political problems in terms of a palace intrigue which could be solved by getting folk together and making them shake hands.”256

Neale demeaned Catherine's policy through his use of simple language such as

'folk' and 'shaking hands.' Contrary to Neale's argument, the evidence demonstrates that Catherine's decision to navigate the middle ground was entirely intentional; she made these decisions because all other options would result in war.257 She interpreted these problems as palace intrigue because they began as such, as the key players involved in these problems often lived at court.258 This movement was not at a grassroots level. The power players were the court factions, whose actions inspired the general public of Paris and the rest of

France.259

As a master of manipulation, Catherine de' Medici used traditional imagery and accepted customs to establish herself as the matriarch of France.

Catherine ensured her place within France's political arena by linking herself as the wife, widow and mother of the Valois kings. It was not until after her marriage ended with Henry's death that she was able to secure true political power. Several factors inhibited her from finding true power as Queen Consort, such as Henry's steadfast loyalty to his mistress Diane de Poitiers and the lack of attention

Catherine received as a result. Salic law also existed in France, which prohibited

256 Sir John Neale, “The Failure of Catherine de Medici,” J.H.M. Salmon, ed., The French Wars of Religion (Lexington: D.C. and Heath Company, 1967), 37. 257 Héritier, 186. 258 Héritier, 186. 259 Richard S. Dunn, The Age of Religious Wars, 1559-1715 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1979), 33. 64 women from ruling in their own name. Popular factions at court, dominated most strongly by the Catholic Guises, also sought to usurp Catherine's claim to power.

Taking advantage of a special set of circumstances which included the death of her husband and the end of her role as Queen Consort, as well as the death of her first son Francis II, Catherine took advantage of her new role as

Queen Mother and secured herself the regency of her second son, the newly crowned King Charles IX. She did this in a bid to ensure that her son remain untouchable to the warring court factions. Her use of imagery which emphasized her role as a mother, wife and matriarch of France resulted in the success of her regency, which lasted for three years, from 1560 until 1563. As a woman,

Catherine used motherhood to establish a new route to power that was accepted by the King's royal council and the rest of France, and it was thus that her power continued after her regency ended.

Chapter 3

Crafting an Approach to Religious Conflict in France

This chapter will analyze how Catherine de' Medici approached religious and political conflicts in France. As a ruler, Catherine made calculated political decisions in an effort to maintain support of both the Huguenots and Catholics, yet kept her personal beliefs aside. Historians have been most cruel in their analysis of Catherine with respect to her position on the complex religious issues in France. There are many reasons which both explain and validate the approach she chose. Catherine's decision to adopt a conciliatory attitude towards the

Huguenots was threefold: firstly, to secure the throne for her son Charles IX; secondly, to ensure control over the warring factions at court; and thirdly, to avoid the explosion of religious tensions in Paris and greater France. As both the Queen

Mother and matriarchal figurehead of France, Catherine's strategies to establish religious unity were similar to her methods of controlling factional disagreements at court. They were both based on conciliatory policies which ensured the security of her power, and that of her son.

With Machiavelli as her guide, Catherine sought to establish herself as a supreme leader in France. As The Prince dictates, “a prince should seem to be merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and upright, and should even be so in reality; but he should have his mind so trained that, when occasion requires it, he may know how to change to the opposite.”260 Catherine's approach to the

Huguenot-Catholic conflict comprised nearly all of these components. Her real skill, however, lay within the last of Machiavelli's recommendations; she was able to successfully manipulate key figures at court, all in the pursuit of maintaining

260 Niccolò Machiavelli, Christian E. Detmold, trans., The Prince (New York: Washington Square Press, Inc, 1968), 77. 67 her own power, and through that the power of her son. Catherine circumvented her nobles by playing them off of one another in an effort to secure the greater safety of France, which was threatened by the individual ambitions of these powerful families. Due to the overwhelming influence noble families such as the

Guise exerted, Catherine's primary objective was to control them, and through them, quell the rest of France. Before Catherine could exercise independent authority and legislate her policies, the Huguenots faced prosecution under her husband, Henry II.

The Persecution of Huguenots under Henry II

Before Catherine de' Medici's conciliatory approach to religious conflict in

France, Protestants faced brutal persecution during the reign of her husband,

Henry II.261 While Francis had wavered in his stance on French Protestantism,

Henry was decidedly anti-Huguenot, and persecuted them throughout his reign.262

Heretics were killed in public executions during this period, with those condemned often burned at the stake.263 This especially brutal form of execution was used in an effort to dissuade more people from converting.264 According to author Frederic Baumgartner, the continued unity of France was believed by

Henry and his followers to be achievable solely through the unification of the

261 Kathleen A. Parrow, “Neither Treason nor Heresy: Use of Defence Arguments to Avoid Forfeiture during the French Wars of Religion,” The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 22, no. 4 (Winter 1991): 709, accessed February 10th, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2542373. 262 Frederic J. Baumgartner, Henry II: King of France, 1547-1559 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1988), 124. 263 Barbara Diefendorf, “Prelude to a Massacre: Popular Unrest in Paris, 1557-1572," The American Historical Review vol. 90, no. 5 (December 1985): 1073, accessed February 1st, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1859659. 264 Diefendorf, 1073. 68 church. In their eyes, it became therefore impossible to accept the Huguenots.265

As a staunch Catholic, Henry was deeply offended by the existence of what he perceived as heresy in his country. Though his contempt for Protestantism was evident, Henry could not rid France of its presence. Huguenots had existed in

France for over twenty years by the time Henry became king in 1547.266 Henry's commitment to ridding France of this heresy did not spare any Huguenot, regardless of their class. All French people, regardless of social status, could face execution for their faith. Anne Du Bourg, who was then president of the

Parlement of Paris, stood up in front of the king and announced his Protestant beliefs during a meeting of the Parlement, and was promptly arrested. After facing trial, he was found guilty and executed December 23rd, 1559.267

Historian Barbara Diefendorf argues that Henry's stance against the

Huguenots has become widely accepted among historians as a fact, stating that “it is well known that Henry II... intended to return home and take up the battle against heresy and that, on his death, the Guises used their considerable influence at court to intensify this fight.”268 It was the Guises' position as forerunners in the battle against French Protestantism along with Henry's dedication to eradicate the faith which prevented Catherine from having any influence over religious matters in France while Queen Consort. Her role as observer, however, undoubtedly influenced her choice to employ conciliation rather than persecution; she

265 Baumgartner, 124. 266 Baumgartner, 125. 267 “Beza at Geneva,” History of the Christian Church, accessed February 14th, 2014, http://www.bible.ca/history/philip-schaff/8_ch19.htm. 268 Diefendorf, 1072-1073. 69 recognized the growing political organization of the Huguenot party as a potential source of power for herself, and therefore moved to embrace the growing presence of this new faith, issuing several conciliatory edicts which would grant

Huguenots privileges previously unheard of in France.

Early Conciliatory Gestures

Moving away from Henry's vicious persecution, Catherine attempted to create tolerance in France for Huguenots. In her new seat of power, Catherine took measures to protect them from the threat of inquisition, a strategy which the

Guises and their followers wanted to pursue.269 While young Francis II ruled,

Catherine aided him in drafting the Edict of Romorantin in response to the

Conspiracy at Amboise, a plot against Guise authority designed by prominent

Huguenot Louis, Prince de Condé, which resulted in an attack on the château at

Amboise on March 19th, 1560.270 The main purpose of this edict was to distinguish sedition from heresy,271 and to prevent an inquisition in France.272 By establishing this difference, Catherine ensured that the Huguenots were temporarily exempt from religious persecution. Issued in May of 1560, the edict of Romorantin allowed the Huguenots "to escape the Inquisition for which the

Guises and their supporters were clamouring," as stated by Philippe Erlanger.273

269 Diefendorf, 1072-1073. 270 “Conspiracy of Amboise,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed March 7th, 2014, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/18961/Conspiracy-of-Amboise. 271 Philippe Erlanger, Patrick O'Brian, trans., St. Bartholomew's Night: The Massacre of Saint- Bartholomew (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1962), 31. 272 “The French Wars of Religion – Chronology,” accessed March 7th, 2014, http://clc-library- org-docs.angelfire.com/chron.html. 273 Erlanger, 31. 70

Catherine had not yet established herself as Queen Regent and the Guise family still held the king firmly within their grasp, so her influence was limited at this time. This edict therefore does not represent the full breadth of her conciliatory approach to the conflict. It does serve, however, as an early example of her attitude toward the conflict. Until she became regent, Catherine was not readily able to enact conciliatory legislation.274

Catherine soon found a powerful ally in Michel de L'Hospital, who was chancellor of France from 1560-1568 and practiced a similar form of toleration towards Huguenots as the Queen Mother.275 It was he who aided Catherine in passing the Edict of Romorantin, and who presented it to Parlement in May

1560.276 Though he held a prominent position in the French government,

L'Hospital faced fierce opposition from the Parlement due to the limitations placed by the edict on the judicial body involving cases of heresy.277 As stated by historian and author Nancy Lyman Roelker, this edict was the first step in creating a more secular Parlement, with new restrictions in place to encourage decisions based on actions, rather than beliefs.278 Though L'Hospital successfully lobbied to have the edict issued, it was never enforced. This lack of enforcement has been deemed by Roelker as a gesture of conciliation, as relations between Parlement and the crown had become strained due to L'Hospital's repeated lobbying.279

274 Erlanger, 31. 275 “Michel de L'Hospital,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed March 23rd, 2014, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338507/Michel-de-LHospital. 276 Nancy Lyman Roelker, One King, One Faith: The Parlement of Paris and the Religious Reformations of the Sixteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 241. 277 Roelker, 241. 278 Roelker, 241. 279 Roelker, 241. 71

Catherine herself met with extreme unrest upon beginning her rule as

Queen Regent in 1560. She was immediately faced with placating both the

Catholics and Huguenots, yet needed time to determine how to solve the overwhelming discord.280 Her first task was to ensure the security of her son

Charles IX; Catherine quickly determined that her best chance at success was through conciliatory policy.281 As Queen Regent, Catherine was finally able to take a direct approach to religious conflict in France, and created her own legislation as acting head of state. Her first official attempt at legislating the conciliation of Catholics and Huguenots in France was the disastrous Colloquy de

Poissy, held during the autumn of 1561.282 With this colloquy, Catherine hoped to create a National Council of the French Church, through a permanent unification of the Catholic and Huguenot faiths.283 Instead, the two faiths became even more polarized due to their fundamentally different theologies.284 Though it was a failure, this colloquy demonstrated Catherine's growing confidence and readiness to breach religious divides in France.

Catherine's next attempt at conciliation was the Edict of Saint-Germain, issued by Chancellor Michel de L'Hospital in January of 1562.285 This edict allowed Huguenots to worship in groups in the countryside, but forbade them from worship and assembly inside towns or at night, whether in public or

280 Diefendorf, 1073. 281 Diefendorf, 1073. 282 Janet Glenn Gray, The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 102. 283 Gray, 102. 284 Gray, 102. 285 Biancamaria Fontana, Montaigne's Politics: Authority and Governance in the Essais (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 67. 72 private.286 Like Romorantin had, this edict represented another step toward secular governing in France, an ideal pressed by both Catherine and the

Chancellor.287 According to Héritier, Catherine “regarded freedom of conscience as an immutable law, and gave the Protestants the necessary guarantees to uphold it.”288 She certainly believed that Huguenots had a fundamental right to worship, but leading Catholic figures, such as Francis, Duke of Guise, highly disagreed.

In the first section of the edict, the third paragraph specifically targeted the safety of Huguenot worshippers. This edict commanded “tous juges, magistratz et autres personnes, de quelque estat, qualité ou condition qu’ilz soient, que lorsque ceulx de lad. religion nouvelle yront, viendront et s’assembleront hors desd. villes pour le faict de leurd. Religion, ilz n’aient à les y, inquieter, molester ne leur courir sus en quelque sorte ou maniere que ce soit,”289 promising swift punishments to any who did.290 Catherine sought to create a safe environment within which Huguenots could worship securely, and a larger environment in which religious wars would cease. What she also created, however, was resentment among the Catholics, and chief among them Francis, Duke of

Guise.291 After Catherine issued the edict, public opinion maintained that these

286 Robert J. Knecht, The French Renaissance Court: 1483-1589 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 248. 287 Fontana, 67. 288 Jean Héritier, Charlotte Haldane, trans., Catherine de Medici (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1963), 296. 289 Translation: “All judges, magitrates, and other persons of various state, quality or condition, are not to prevent, molest nor physically impede in any way members of the new Religion as they are going, coming from or assembling outside of towns for the purpose of their religion.” “Édit de Janvier,” I (3), The French Wars of Religion: Important Primary Texts, accessed March 11th, 2014, http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_01. 290 “Édit de Janvier,” http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_01. 291 Francis Baumgartner, Radical Reactionaries: the political thought of the French Catholic League (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1975), 16. 73 two religions could never coexist because of their fundamental differences.292 The

Catholics, headed by the Guise family, further believed that Catholicism was the true religion of France, and the cornerstone of its identity as a country.293 As a true

Machiavellian, Catherine did not let her own private convictions dictate her policies. Catherine promoted Huguenot tolerance as a balancing act: by embracing the new faith, she revoked the Catholics' religious supremacy. By doing so, Catherine ensured the increased stability of her role as Queen Regent.

The resentment which grew among Catholics within France after the Edict of Saint-Germain was issued roused the Catholic factions at court. On April 4th,

1562, Constable Anne de Montmorency, a great friend of Catherine's, entered

Paris and sacked two prominent sites of Huguenot worship, and made bonfires which burned the religious elements and furniture found in them.294 Hostilities of this nature were common throughout France, and grew to target Huguenots themselves.295 Approximately two months after the edict was issued, the Duke of

Guise came across a group of Huguenots at Vassy.296 On March 1st, 1562, the

Duke, along with his brother Charles and son Henry, passed through the town on his way home and happened upon an assembly of Huguenots in worship within the legal bounds of the edict.297 The presence of the duke's family implies that the act which would follow was not premeditated; however, his wilful ignorance of the edict's conditions implied his guilt.298 According to Janet Glenn Gray, “once

292 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 16. 293 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 16. 294 Diefendorf, 1077-1080. 295 Diefendorf, 1081-1082. 296 Gray, 104. 297 Gray, 104. 298 Gray, 104. 74 the action had begun, it would seem that a seasoned commander like the Duke could have controlled his men more effectively had he really wanted the fighting to cease.”299 His guilt was also implicit in his failure to control his troops, who he had ordered to disperse the Huguenots, but who proceeded to massacre them. This day would become known as the Massacre of Vassy, as seventy-four Huguenots were slain.300

Vassy was not an isolated incident in the conflict between Catholics and

Huguenots, as small pockets of violence had become common between rival bands by 1562.301 Gray contends that what made it distinct, however, was “the involvement of the Duke of Guise, for this was the first time a factional leader had crossed the narrow line between incitement to violence and actual participation.”302 News of this massacre resounded throughout France, and was the ultimate starting point for the first of eight civil wars in France, collectively known as the French Wars of Religion, over which Catherine had little to no control.303 In response to what they deemed a Catholic advance at Vassy, the

Huguenots were quick to rally, seizing the city of Orléans and appointing Condé as both protector and defender of the Churches of France.304 Despite a united

Huguenot front under Condé at the initial outbreak of war, the Catholic

Triumvirate, a three-part union consisting of the Duke of Guise, Constable Anne de Montmorency, and the Marshal Saint-André, and their forces gained the upper

299 Gray, 104. 300 Gray, 104. 301 Rady, 71. 302 Rady, 71. 303 Rady, 71. 304 Rady, 71. 75 hand by March 1563, and a peace settlement was negotiated.305

The alliance of these three great men against the Huguenots was also a manoeuvre against Catherine as a direct violation of her policy of conciliation.306

Though the war had begun partially because of Catherine's attempts at reconciling the divergent religious parties, certain unexpected circumstances arose in 1562 which enabled Catherine to once again approach negotiations from a conciliatory angle.307 In October, the King of Navarre was assassinated; two months later, at the Battle of Dreux in December of 1562, Saint-André was killed and both

Montmorency and Condé captured.308 After another two months, in February

1563, the Duke of Guise was also assassinated.309 As a result of the weak court factions, Catherine negotiated an end to the war.310

After guaranteeing the release of both Montmorency and Condé, Catherine began discussing a peace settlement with them, which would become the Peace of

Amboise, issued in March 1563.311 Though the edict once again appealed to both

Catholics and Huguenots, it revoked some of the rights of Huguenots listed in the

Edict of Saint-Germain, allowing nobles and their relatives to practice the new religion in their own homes, but preventing non-noble Huguenots from doing the same.312 The Huguenots were afforded a single building in selected towns to be used as a place of worship.313 Contrary to the rage the Edict of Saint-Germain

305 Rady, 71. 306 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 16. 307 Rady, 71. 308 Rady, 71. 309 Rady, 71. 310 Rady, 71. 311 Rady, 71. 312 Rady, 73. 313 “Édit d'Amboise,” II (2), The French Wars of Religion: Important Primary Texts, accessed 76 provoked among Catholics, this edict led the Huguenots to action, as they felt cheated by this edict that eliminated many of their former rights to worship, such as freedom of public assembly outside of towns.314 Catherine could not prevent the inevitable return of factional feuding at court. As can be seen by her revocation of certain Huguenot concessions, her policy was to control the impact it made outside of court.315 It is likely that this decision may have been reached by

Catherine to increase the Huguenots' safety, as the locations designated for their worship were extremely remote, ensuring the removal of Huguenots from immediate threats posed by the fervently Catholic Paris. Regardless of Catherine's efforts, conflict was again provoked between Catholics and Huguenots, leading to a second civil war.316

Catherine wanted peace from both sides of the religious conflict.

Throughout the disputes, she fought to ensure that her son never be used as a pawn by either side, and expressed indignation when he was treated as such.

When hostilities began on April 6, 1562, she and Charles were forcibly escorted to Paris by the triumvirate and made to denounce the Huguenot leaders as rebels.317 After this event, Catherine continued issuing peace initiatives, but despite her efforts, these were denied by both sides, as they were each equally consumed by the conflict.318 It is important to note her view of both parties as

March 11th, 2014, http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_02. 314 Rady, 73. 315 Rady, 74. 316 Rady, 74. 317 Rady, 71. 318 The conflict, here, is in reference to the multiple wars that made up the French Wars of Religion. Rady, 71. 77 potentially dangerous, illustrated through her repeated attempts at pacifying the

Catholics and her lack of support for Huguenot militancy. Catherine's impartiality is further exemplified in her temporary resentment of the Huguenot cause whenever it threatened her son. During the early morning of September 28th,

1563, she and Charles were alerted to a Huguenot army in pursuit of them, and decided to flee to Paris to ensure their security.319 Though she successfully avoided capture, this event made Catherine extremely upset. Calling it “the greatest wickedness in the world,” she felt that the Huguenot actions threatened not only to nullify all of her efforts to safely legalize their faith, but also to reverse the temporary peace her edicts had induced in France.320

Tensions

Catherine's primary concern was the safety of her son; she was therefore willing to recognize the legitimacy of each side of the conflict so long as it ensured his safety. Catherine also acknowledged, however, that she possessed very little control over the larger context of the religious conflict. Much of the modern criticism surrounding Catherine's legacy pertains to her inability to end the eight civil wars plaguing France during her reign. What must be understood, however, is that these wars were largely out of her control. As has been emphasized, the factions that existed at the French royal court during this period, comprising mainly the Guise, Bourbon and Montmorency families, were divided

319 Knecht, 250. 320 Knecht, 250. 78 along social, political, and most importantly religious lines.321 Tensions existed within France which lay beyond Catherine's control, consisting mainly of Catholic support throughout France for institutions such as the triumvirate and the Catholic

League, as well as the mob of Paris.

Personal faith was certainly a motivating factor in the French Civil Wars.

It was also, however, used as an excuse for inciting conflict. Religion was manipulated within both Huguenot and Catholic parties by individuals consumed with political ambitions,322 and as a legitimating factor for conflict.323 Along with achieving religious prominence, each party sought to establish political domination within France, through which their prosperity would be ensured.324

The Catholics believed they had an advantage in the political arena through their

Church, which was long-established, and through the monarch's traditional role as eradicator of heresy.325 Traditionally, upon their coronation, a new king's first oath was to swear to defend the Church, and uphold its sanctions.326 As acting sovereign, Catherine was upheld to the same expectations by the Catholics.

There were two sides to the religious issue. Both sides manipulated faith to their own political interests, yet believed simultaneously that their actions were sanctioned by God. According to Kathleen Parrow, “divine law gave the pious a right to expel the impious and to retain possession of territory they captured, if they captured it without sinful intention."327 The issue here, then, was that each

321 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 13. 322 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 13. 323 Gray, 101. 324 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 13. 325 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 16. 326 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 16. 327 Parrow, 707-708. 79 side believed their faith was the true religion of France and denounced the other as a heresy. In addition to this, divine law was seen as justifying incidents of violence against the Huguenots, which only grew in frequency in the years leading up to the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre.328 Religion was, however, merely one factor inhibiting Catherine's total control over France during her reign as Queen Regent. The hostile factions at court, who had become divided not only along political but religious beliefs, were becoming increasingly dangerous. These factions consisted mainly of the Guise and the Montmorency, who represented the ultra-Catholics, and the Bourbons, members of whom, such as Prince Louis de

Condé, supported the Huguenot cause.

The ability of these factions to influence popular opinion throughout

France was remarkable, and can be seen most evidently through the influence exerted by the Guise family. Jeanne Harrie offers a compelling example which supports the argument that the Guise family was positioning itself as a possible alternative to the Valois. Harrie offers a sample of artwork from this period as an example of this initiative, arguing that The Triumph of the Eucharist and of the

Catholic Faith enamel, created between 1561 and 1563 by artist Léonard

Limosin, was an expression of the Guise family's frustration with Catherine de'

Medici and her policy regarding the conciliation of French Catholics and

Huguenots329 (see Appendix C). The representation of Antoinette Bourbon in the portrait acted as an antithesis of Catherine, cementing the family's claims to

328 Parrow, 708. 329 Jeanne Harrie, “The Guises, the Body of Christ, and the Body Politic,” The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 37, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 43, accessed January 31st, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20477696. 80 religious and political leadership over those of Catherine.330 The Guises were determined to keep Catholicism, what they believed was the true faith, as the only religion in France.331 The easiest way to ensure this would be to secure the support of the public in their favour, rather than Catherine's.

As a form of public art, this piece was intended for a royal audience, meaning that the Guise family knew explicitly who would be analyzing it. By placing Antoinette as a matriarchal figure at the enamel's centre, the Guises challenged Catherine's position as regent, and mother of France.332 The enamel propositioned that the Guises were Catherine's opposition, and presented them as possible candidates for the French throne through the emphasis of their religious orthodoxy and a commemoration of their various achievements on behalf of the faith and the kingdom.333 Through the commission of this enamel, the Guises were acknowledging their lack of support of Catherine in an extremely obvious fashion. They could afford to take such risks, however, due to the overwhelming support they received from French Catholics.

The support for the Guise family was indeed massive. One of its members, the Duke of Guise, was seen as both a hero of war and of the Catholic faith, and was thus welcomed as the man who would rid Paris of Huguenot heretics. As he rode into the city on March 16th, 1562, Guise made a grand entry.

330 Harrie, 43. 331 Harrie, 45. 332 Harrie, 52. 333 Harrie, 53. 81

He deliberately chose to enter through the porte St.-Denis, the gate used for royal entries, in order to give an impression of power and authority. And, indeed, he was greeted royally. He was met by an impressive entourage of nobles, city officers, and bourgeois. The crowds that lined the streets to view his arrival shouted their joy – and their hatred of the Huguenots.334

The Catholics in Paris were possessed by an unwavering support of the Guise family, and would react to any political move against them by rioting. The threat posed by the Guises' support, however, was not only to be found within Paris.

According to author Richard S. Dunn, support for the Guise existed throughout

France. Pockets of support were found in Northern and Northwestern France, which provided them with financial and military resources as well as increased their power.335

As the centre of French Catholicism, Paris was volatile.336 It had a long history of mob violence, a subject with which both Catherine and the League were intimately acquainted. The mobs of Paris proved to be a vital component in the unfolding of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, though Catherine consistently sought to keep it under her control.337 The mob in Paris was also fueled by factors apart from Guise orthodoxy. The society of Paris felt that the Huguenot doctrines, in addition to their heresy, attacked their secular community.338 The social body of

French Catholics was tied directly to the services they took part of in Church, all of which were cut from Huguenot services.

334 Diefendorf, 1076-1077. 335 Richard S. Dunn, The Age of Religious Wars, 1559-1715 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1979), 33. 336 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 21-22. 337 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 21-22. 338 Leonardo, 252. 82

By denouncing and mocking the fundamentals of Catholic orthodoxy, especially Christ's real presence and the sacrifice of the Mass, Calvinists had severed all ties to the Catholic community and were no longer members of the body of Christ. It was only natural that conviction in a corporeal metaphor would lead Catholics to view Huguenots as a disease corrupting religious and social bonds.339

The Catholics in Paris felt that their day to day lives were also threatened by

Huguenots. This, in addition to several other factors, elicited Catholics to act out against those they perceived as heretics, actions which they believed were legitimized through their own religious beliefs.340 It was for this reason that

Catherine could not control them during the massacre.

The Massacre

Because she continually sought stability for herself, her son the King, and the country of France, Catherine ultimately decided the Huguenot threat had become too great. This threat, however, did not come from the Huguenot masses directly, but rather from their leaders, and chief among them Gaspard de

Coligny.341 Until September 1571, Catherine had not seen Coligny as a serious threat to her power. Though he exerted considerable influence over her son

Charles IX, he also maintained a steadfast loyalty to the monarchy. Coligny even acknowledged Catherine as the power source behind the throne, and was received warmly by her as a result.342 As the Protestant reformation grew in the

Netherlands, however, Coligny adopted an expansionist policy, encouraging the

339 Leonardo, 252. 340 Parrow, 708. 341 Gray, 124. 342 Gray, 123. 83 king to provide support for reformers.343 Evidence of Coligny's colonial ambitions extended back to 1555, when a Huguenot settlement founded near Rio De Janeiro,

Brazil, was named Fort Coligny in his honour, as he had initiated the venture.344

Coligny's current proposition included supporting the Netherlands through war with Spain, which Catherine violently opposed.345 When put forward to the Royal

Council August 10th, 1572, Coligny was outvoted; his influence, however, meant that the other Huguenot leaders still wanted war.346 During the next two weeks,

Catherine plotted his demise.

Though they certainly posed a threat, it was not the Protestant leaders within France who Catherine feared the most. Much like the relationship between the Huguenots and their leaders within France, the danger had grown to include potential international allies, which had now become the largest threat to France's shaky peace.347 According to Van Dyke, “it soon became evident that the question of peace or war was not one which could be decided... [by] her court policy. The

Huguenots were still able to keep the field and so long as they kept the field, there was always the chance of foreign interference on their behalf.”348 The collective number of Protestant groups throughout England, the German provinces, and The

Netherlands would have outnumbered any French defence.349 It was for this reason that Catherine decided the Huguenot leader, Gaspard de Coligny, must be

343 Gray, 123-124. 344 Gray, 90-91. 345 Gray, 124. 346 Gray, 124. 347 Van Dyke, vol i, 29. 348 Van Dyke, vol i, 29. 349 Van Dyke, vol i, 29. 84 eliminated.350

In the days leading up to the massacre that would seal her fate in history as a villain, Catherine continued to seek conciliation between the Catholic and

Huguenot parties. In an effort to legitimize her cause in the eyes of the royal court, Catherine arranged the marriage of her Catholic daughter Marguerite to

Henry of Navarre, the nominal head of French Protestantism and a prominent member of the Bourbon family.351 The prospect of the union was initially opposed by nearly everyone except Catherine; Jeanne d'Albret, Henry's mother, was strongly opposed, as was eighteen-year-old Henry.352 However, the union was attractive to Jeanne d'Albret regardless of her religious beliefs as it brought her son closer to the throne and was accompanied by a huge dowry, totaling approximately 300 000 livres.353 Jeanne did not live to witness the marriage, dying in June.354 The pope himself also rejected the union and threatened not to grant a dispensation, without which the marriage would be considered illegal by the Catholic Church.355

Despite these statements of opposition, the marriage contract was signed by both parties on April 11th, 1572.356 Though designed specifically to reconcile the religious divide, the wedding, which took place August 18th in Paris, did

350 Van Dyke, vol i, 29. 351 Steven Kreis, “Lecture 6: Europe in the Age of Religious Wars, 1560-1715,” The History Guide: Lectures on Early Modern European History, August 4th 2009, accessed March 13th, 2014, http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html. 352 Erlanger, 72. 353 Erlanger, 86. 354 Gray, 127. 355 Erlanger, 72. 356 Erlanger, 86. 85 nothing to quell religious tensions.357 Catholics denied its validity and believed it was merely another example of Catherine's efforts to legitimize the Huguenot cause.358 What the Catholics did not know, however, was that Catherine was planning the elimination of the Huguenot leaders, as an ultimate effort to end the religious conflict. The Huguenots, contrary to the Catholics, rejoiced at the prospect of this union, as the ultra-Huguenot Henry of Navarre was to become a prominent part of the royal family, which could only mean an increase in their prominence within France.359

As the wedding brought Coligny to Paris, it made sense for Catherine to choose it as the perfect time to launch her plans into action. This may have been simple enough, but the desicion to order the deaths of these men did not come easily for Catherine. According to Paul Van Dyke, it took Catherine years to finally decide that Coligny posed too great a threat, as he had been among her only friends at court after the death of her husband Henry II.360 He had also helped to ensure that Huguenots in France, who felt threatened by periodic outbreaks of violence against them, adhered to the Edicts of Saint-Germain and

Amboise, promising that the King would protect them.361 Most importantly, however, Coligny had been an avid supporter of Catherine as regent.362 She was ultimately convinced, however, by the threat he and his ambitions for France

357 Gray, 130. 358 Gray, 130. 359 Gray, 130. 360 Van Dyke, vol ii, 83. 361 Paul Van Dyke, Catherine de Médicis, vol. II (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922), 312, accessed March 21, 2014, https://archive.org/details/catherinedemedic02vand. 362 Van Dyke, vol. ii, 82. 86 posed to her eldest son, Charles IX.363 All accounts of the hours leading up to the massacre depict her, surrounded by advisors, deep in discussion for hours before making a final decision. It is undisputed that Catherine wanted Coligny dead, but historians have failed to prove her ultimate guilt in the St. Bartholomew's Day

Massacre, which took place August 24th, 1572.364

According to Jacques-Auguste de Thou, a French statesman and historiographer who witnessed the massacre as a child,365 Catherine approved of the plan to kill the Protestants.366 What he does not specify, however, is which

Huguenots to whom he is referring. Immediately after his previous statement, de

Thou describes how Catherine and her advisors “discussed for some time whether they should make an exception of the king of Navarre and the prince of Condé.

All agreed that the king of Navarre should be spared by reason of the royal dignity and the new alliance.”367 It is important to remember the bias in primary source accounts, especially surrounding controversial events such as massacre. It is extremely unclear from whom the order came to murder the Huguenots. It is unlikely that it was Catherine, as her initial plan to kill Coligny two days before the massacre does not correlate with the massacre itself. As written in another chronicle by Prosper Mérimée, “enfin, l'assassinat de Coligny, qui eut lieu deux jours avant la Saint-Barthélemy, n'achève-t-il pas de réfuter la supposition d'un

363 Van Dyke, vol ii, 83. 364 Paul Halsall, ed., Jacques-Auguste de Thou, “The Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, Aug. 24, 1572,” Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University, accessed March 14th, 2014, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1572stbarts.asp. 365 “Jacques-Auguste de Thou,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed March 14th, 2014, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/593465/Jacques-Auguste-de-Thou. 366 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1572stbarts.asp. 367 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1572stbarts.asp. 87 complot? Pourquoi tuer le chef avant le massacre général?”368 Coligny was the only real leader: the two other princes, Condé and Navarre, were too young to exert much influence. Coligny's death, therefore, was the only one necessary to ensure Charles' safety.369 The order for Coligny's death would only be legal if issued by the King, so Catherine attempted to convince Charles to issue the order.370

The reputed mental instability of Charles IX suggests that his explosive response to Catherine's suggestions, whether intended or not, triggered the massacre. The initial plot to have Coligny murdered failed when the would-be assassin missed his shot, merely wounding Coligny.371 In the frenzy that followed,

Jean Héritier suggests that Charles ordered the guards to kill every Huguenot, and spare none, with the reasoning that none would be left to reproach him for the deed.372 Héritier argues that, in an attempt to change his image as a weak king,

Charles wanted to prove himself as a brave soldier to his mother and brother by rising against the Huguenots.373 He is depicted by various historians, such as Janet

Glenn Gray and Jean Héritier, shouting "kill! kill! kill!" while shooting at the

Huguenots from his balcony.374 His impulsiveness, together with the volatile mob of Paris, created a fatal combination.375

368 Translation: “Doesn't the assassination itself of Coligny, which occurred two days before Saint-Bartholomew, refute the supposition of a plot? Why kill the chief before the general massacre?” Prosper Mérimée, Chronique du règne de Charles IX (Paris: Charpentier, 1842), 8-9. 369 Mérimée, 9. 370 Mérimée, 9. 371 Knecht, Renaissance Court, 254-255. 372 Héritier, 324-325. 373 Héritier, 325. 374 Héritier, 325. 375 Diefendorf, 1069. 88

It did not matter that Catherine and her advisors had not intended mass casualties. Once the order was issued, the Catholics of Paris, “encouraged by a guise of legality... eagerly sought to eradicate heresy in their city.”376 As a result of mob violence, thousands of Huguenots were killed that night.377 King Charles immediately issued an edict the next day in a bid to stop the violence, proclaiming he wanted a list of names of each Huguenot survivor, and that people in Paris should “preserve all the said persons of the [reformed] religion, so that no annoyance or wrong should be done to them, but that they should be well and truly guarded,”378 threatening those who disobeyed with execution.379

Seeing that the aftermath of the massacre would lead to another outbreak of war, Charles and Catherine worked together to manipulate the events surrounding the massacre, portraying it as a necessary evil.380 Charles took initiative and went to the Parlement in Paris on August 26th to address rumours surrounding his role in the massacre.381 A supportive atmosphere existed within

Paris after the event, and Charles, prompted by Catherine, who sincerely believed there was no suitable alternative, took full advantage. Charles announced to the

Parlement that he claimed full responsibility for the massacre, adding that he felt that it was the will of God.382

376 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 26. 377 Erlanger, 191-192. 378 Erlanger, 171. 379 Rady, 81. 380 Gray, 150. 381 Gray, 150. 382 Henri Noguères, The Massacre of Saint-Bartholomew, trans. Claire Engel (New York: Macmillan, 1970), p. 137, in Gray, 150. 89

After the Massacre: Catherine's Last Years

During the aftermath of Saint Bartholomew's, Catherine fought to reassert control over Paris. To ensure that her influence be dominant once again in effecting peace throughout the kingdom, she had to act fast, and decided to act as though the massacre had been fully intentional. This, of course, violated her traditional conciliatory policies, yet it was the only action she could take that guaranteed her renewed position as a political power player.383 Catherine was forced to align herself with the Catholic cause. The Huguenots had deserted her after the massacre, and now considered Catherine and her sons as their strongest adversaries.384 Had she chosen instead to face Parlement and admit that the massacre had been unintended, the Catholics in Paris would have again erupted, for they were celebrating the recent events as a miracle.385

The Massacre of Saint-Bartholomew had resounding effects in France and throughout greater Europe. In the first letters sent to the provinces and international capital cities bearing his account of the massacre, Charles condemned the Guises as the culprits, yet went to Parlement the next day to profess his own guilt in the matter, a statement which contradicted his earlier claims.386 Catherine also sent out contradictory documents that each bore a different account of the massacre. The resulting message received by the various

French provinces and European kingdoms was highly varied, and created a

383 Gray, 150. 384 Rady, 81. 385 Rady, 81. 386 Noguères, 150. 90 frenzy.387 Within France, though the king had issued an edict on August 25th to stop the massacres, his stance on the subject soon began to waver. The violent mob mentality that had taken over Paris now began to infect cities such as Meaux,

Troyes, Orleans, Bourges, Angers, Saumur, Lyons, Rouen, Toulouse, and

Bordeaux.388

To increase their popularity with the Catholics, whose support served as the most direct route to ultimate authority in post-massacre France, Charles and

Catherine deliberately sent out deplicitous messages, intent on burying the truth that the massacre was largely a coincidence and the risk it entailed of their leadership being questioned.389 In one such message, Catherine wrote to her daughter Elizabeth in Spain, emphasizing that neither she nor Charles were involved in the first attempt on Coligny's life. In her letter, Catherine claimed that while Charles sought the man responsible for the first attempt on the admiral's life, it was revealed that Coligny was planning a coup in which he would murder the king, and that she and Charles had therefore been compelled to aid the Guises in their murder of Coligny.390 According to Van Dyke, this claim was denied by the Guises, who argued they were not involved in the murder.391

Catherine wrote again to her cousin Cosimo, Duke of Tuscany, whose

Catholic faith she appealed to in her letter.

387 Gray, 150. 388 Van Dyke, vol ii, 95. 389 Oeuvres de François de La Mothe Le Vayer Tome VII, Part 2, (1759), 323, in Van Dyke, vol ii, 110. 390 Oeuvres de La Mothe, 110-111. 391 Van Dyke, vol ii, 111. 91

Je me suys tousjours asseuree que vous recevrez singulier plaisir dentendre lheureux success de lexecution de lamyral et ses adherans, comme nos lettres due IIIIe de ce mois lont suffisamment tesmoigne, en quoy le roy, monsieur mon filz receoit tres grande contentement... de laquelle il espere que Dieu lui fera la grace de tirer le fruict necessaire a la restauration de son eglise.392

Sent September 15th, 1572,393 this letter is merely one among several contradictory letters issued by Catherine during the aftermath of the massacre with the intent that the messy origins of the event would be hidden. It is also significant that this particular letter, which claims full responsibility for the killing of Coligny and the other Huguenot leaders, makes no mention to the massacre of thousands of Huguenots in Paris. This omission was meant to distance Catherine from the atrocities of the greater massacre.

Catherine and Charles worked together during this period to ensure the monarchy remained strong and secure during the aftermath of the Massacre.

Charles, however, took initiative once again, as he had done when he ordered the deaths of all the Huguenots in Paris, and sent another round of letters to the provinces, charging them to uphold the pacifying edict he issued August 25th.394

Perhaps feeling as though his act had not been completed, Charles contradicted these letters days later by sending secret messengers with orders to "take no account of the previous letters, but to follow the example of Paris in eliminating

392 Translation: “I am continually assured that you will receive utmost pleasure in hearing of the happy success of the execution of the admiral and his adherents, as our letters from the 4th of this month sufficiently described, in which the king, my son received very great contentment... for which he hopes that God will give him his grace by doing all that is necessary to restore his church.” C. Charles Casati, ed., “Catherine de Médicis, ” Lettres royaux et lettres missives inédites (Paris: Librairie académique, 1877), 67, accessed March 23rd, 2014, http://ia700304.us.archive.org/3/items/lettresroyauxet00casauoft/lettresroyauxet00casauoft.pdf. 393 Casati, 67. 394 Gray, 150. 92

Huguenots."395 Acting without the advice of his mother, Charles once again made an impulsive decision he would later regret.

The international response to the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre varied greatly, depending upon regional religious affiliation. The most orthodox of the Catholic rulers, Philip II of Spain and Pope Gregory XIII, celebrated the event.396 The pope rejoiced openly at the Huguenot casualties by commissioning several pieces of public art and a commemorative seal for the event.397 Philip sent a letter to Charles congratulating him on his feat, and urging him to continue attacking Huguenot heresy.398 Throughout the rest of Europe, however, the massacre was considered an atrocity.399 In Vienna, London and Geneva, the news was even received with fear, due to the belief that they themseves were potential victims of a future massacre.400

Catherine was also herself a victim of the massacre, albeit in a different sense, as her classic conciliatory policies would no longer work. Had she offered any support to the Huguenots immediately following the massacre, Catherine would ultimately have been labelled by the Catholics as a closeted Huguenot. As a result, Catherine became a traitor to her original conciliatory policies as she offered her support to the Catholic cause. This would lead her even further from her intended direction, as the aftermath of the massacre, according to Gray, marked the "formation of a direct path to the Catholic League."401 However more

395 Gray, 150. 396 Gray, 151. 397 Gray, 151. 398 Gray, 151-152. 399 Paul F. Geisendorf, Théodore de Bèze, in Gray, 152. 400 Gray, 152-153. 401 Gray, 153. 93 secure Catherine's newfound affiliation with the Catholic cause assured her, she was never entirely safe. On May 30th, 1574, Charles died,402 whereupon Catherine once again declared herself regent until the return of her son, Henry III, duke of

Anjou and elected King of Poland.403

This regency took place between the end of a reign and the beginning of a new one and was universally acknowledged as a weak period in France. Because of this, several plots against the monarchy surfaced.404 Condé was, at this point, seriously considering an attempt to overtake the throne, and nearly acted upon his plans to do so.405 Another minor plot involved supporters of Catherine's youngest son, the Duke of Alençon. A small group of minor noblemen were planning to assassinate Catherine and Anjou in 1574, so that Alençon could become king.406

Both of these plots were swiftly discovered, and put down. Catherine successfully secured the kingdom while Henry travelled back from Poland to become King of

France, yet had very little input during the years which followed.407

Unlike his brothers before him, Henry accepted and desired little advice from Catherine in regards to how to run his kingdom.408 Catherine's influence as

Queen Mother, which she had exercised so effectively during her term as Queen

Regent and throughout the reign of Charles, now essentially became a formality.

Henry did follow certain elements of Catherine's policies, such as legislating

402 “Charles IX,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed March 15th, 2014, www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/107197/Charles-IX. 403 Robert M. Kingdon, Myths About the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacres, 1572-1576 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 201. 404 Kingdon, 190. 405 Kingdon, 190. 406 Kingdon, 194. 407 Rady, 83. 408 Rady, 83. 94 support of the Huguenot faction to counteract the influence of the Guises and the newly prominent Catholic League, an organization within which he had been denied prominence.409 Unlike Catherine, however, Henry lacked political finesse.

During his reign, Henry was despised by many of his subjects, who saw him as the ultimate Huguenot sympathizer, ostentatious both in dress and behaviour, and engaging in lude acts; he even became infected with syphilis as a result of his various exploits.410 He also created massive polarity within the royal court through his impulsive decisions. Evidence of his lack of reflection before making decisions is evident in a letter written by him addressed to his supporters in March

1586, requesting cannon powder, as his armies were soon to run out.411

With very little regard for the atmosphere at court and potential consequences of his decisions, Henry pursued his support for the Huguenots.

Henry was ignorant of the massive Catholic majority that had developed in France since the massacre, and that institutions such as the Catholic League had risen in prominence as a result.412 Henry also held very little regard for the nobility in

France and did not account for their opinion on any matter, a subject which

Machiavelli specifically warns against in his treatise. "The King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords, acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them; they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away except at his peril."413 This marks the biggest difference between

409 Kingdon, 125. 410 Gray, 164-165. 411 C. Charles Casati, ed., “Henri III,” Lettres royaux et lettres missives inédites (Paris: Librairie académique, 1877), 31, accessed March 23rd, 2014, http://ia700304.us.archive.org/3/items/lettresroyauxet00casauoft/lettresroyauxet00casauoft.pdf. 412 Gray, 164-165. 413 Machiavelli, 15. 95

Henry and his mother; Catherine joined the Catholic masses upon realizing that it promised her continued power through its creation of a stable France, a country in which her conciliatory approach had become unfeasible. Henry, meanwhile, ignored or was ignorant of the developments in France's religious climate and pursued policies which offered him alone the greatest immediate benefit and pleasure.414 The combination of these factors created a sovereign who lacked the respect of his subjects, and who seemed to have little respect for himself.

His verdict on religious matters in France was even more confusing.

Refusing to take advantage of Catherine's years of experience in dealing with religious conflict, Henry believed he could force the rest of France to forget past conflicts, thereby ensuring an end to the warfare he so loathed to take part of.415

During the second year of his reign, Henry issued the Peace of Monsieur in 1576, as a peace settlement in the latest civil war.416 It stated that

La memoire de toutes choses passées... depuis les troubles advenuz en nostred. royaume et à l’occasion d’iceulx, demeurera estaincte et assoupie comme de chose non advenue ; et ne sera loisible ny permis à noz procureurs generaulx ny autres personnes publicques ou privées quelzconques... en faire mention.417

Even after such a statement of support toward the Huguenot faction, Henry sought

414 Héritier, 366. 415 Héritier, 366. 416 “VII Paix de Monsieur. Édit de Paris dit de Beaulieu,” VII (1), The French Wars of Religion: Important Primary Texts, accessed March 15th, 2014, http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_07. 417 Translation: “The memory of all things past... since the troubles which befell our kingdom will remain extinguished and dormant, as if they never happened, and will be neither legal nor permitted among general prosecutors nor other persons of public or private office... to be mentioned.” http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_07. 96 to become increasingly involved with Catholic partisanship. He frequently spoke of his desire for all of France to follow Catholicism, yet roamed around during official ceremonies in bare feet, stating his devotion to Huguenot self- deprication.418 Henry's neurotic tendencies caused Catherine much pain during the last years of her life.419

One entity which posed a very real threat to the monarchy during the reign of Henry III was the Catholic League. The main purpose of the Catholic League was "the preservation of the Catholic Church and the elimination of heresy from the realm."420 The League was formed in 1576 by the Catholic nobility in France under the leadership of Henry I de Lorraine, the third duke of Guise, in response to the Peace of Monsieur.421 These men represented traditional Catholicism, and used ancient religious texts to legitimize their cause, demonstrating the lengths to which they were willing to go to purge France of the Huguenot presence. Relying specifically on religious symbolism familiar to the public, the Catholic League successfully secured the support of thousands, and acted as an antithesis to

Henry.422 The massive tensions in Paris, partially fueled by the League, motivated the Guises to gather an army against Henry during the summer of 1589. Before they could strike, however, a young Dominican friar by the name of Jacques

Clément, snuck into Henry's royal military camp on August 1st, 1589, and stabbed

418 Gray, 165. 419 Héritier, 367. 420 Dalia M. Leonardo, “'Cut off This Rotten Member': The Rhetoric of Heresy, Sin, and Disease in the Ideology of the French Catholic League,” The Catholic Historical Review vol. 88, no. 2 (April 2002): 248, accessed February 11th, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25026145. 421 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 16. 422 Leonardo, 248. 97 him.423 Henry's refusal to hede any of Catherine's advice, which only intensified after her death, had finally resulted in his ultimate demise. As stated by Héritier,

Catherine was "a kind of Prime Minister to an affectionate despot who never ceased to disconcert her."424 Henry died from the wound on August 2nd as a victim of the polarity he had created in France.

Catherine's Final Days

Whether due to her role in the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre or

Henry's ultimate abandonment of her advice, Catherine died in relative obscurity.

Her final years were marred by sickness, and her infinite energy was at last depleted. She was also isolated during this period, and traumatized by the memory of her former glory.425 Catherine found little comfort in the visits of her son, as his instability had caused an irreversible strain on their relationship.426 During her last days, Catherine was entirely removed from the affairs of the state, yet still sought a purpose, as she had never been fond of sitting idly. Her last act saw her once again resume the role of mother-figure and conciliator as she arranged the marriage of her granddaughter Christine of Lorraine to Ferdinand de Medici,

Grand Duke of Tuscany.427 The contract was signed in Catherine's presence

October 24th, 1588, and a dowry was provided by Catherine for Christine consisting of the sum of her Florentine property and 2 000 écus in gold.428

423 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 117. 424 Héritier, 368. 425 Héritier, 454. 426 Héritier, 453. 427 Héritier, 454. 428 Héritier, 454. 98

Satisfied with her last conciliatory act, Catherine, aged 69 years, died January 5th,

1589, and was interred beside her husband at Saint-Denis.429

Catherine's remarkable reign as Queen Mother officially ended in 1589.

An excerpt from an anonymous Parisian pamphlet published shortly after her death effectively summarized the polarity Catherine's conciliatory initiatives created throughout her reign. As translated by Robert Knecht,

Here lies the queen who was both devil and angel, Full of blame and full of praise: She upheld the state and brought down the state; She made many treaties and as many disputes; She gave birth to three kings and to five civil wars; Had châteaux built and towns ruined; Made many good laws and bad edicts; Passer-by, wish her Hell and Paradise.430

This poem offers insight into what Catherine's subjects truly thought of her as

Queen Consort, Queen Regent and Queen Mother. Catherine incited such opinions in people because her conciliatory policies were controversial, and furthermore because she was a woman in a position of power. The opposition with which she was faced throughout her political career demonstrated that both concepts had not yet been accepted by France.

As a queen who successfully manipulated French political imagery through the use of accepted female roles such as wife, widow and mother,

Catherine was ahead of her time. Her conciliatory beliefs, as well as the policies she legislated, also preceded popular opinion in France, and were not reflected in the legislation of either Charles IX or Henry III. Evidence of Catherine's political

429 “Catherine de Medici (1519-1589),” BBC History, accessed March 15th, 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/de_medici_catherine.shtml. 430 Knecht, Renaissance, 335. 99 ingenuity, however, lies in the creation of the Edict of Nantes, issued by King

Henry IV on April 13th, 1598.431 It was the first edict since Catherine which accorded major rights to Huguenots in France. Her belief that religion should not be a barrier to freedom and equality was finally articulated, which not only promised Huguenots a life exempt from religious and political persecution in

France, but was expanded to allow them to pursue a full university education.432

In addition, the edict also accorded Huguenots representation in judicial courts.433

As stated in section 22, “ordonnons qu'il ne sera faict difference ne distinction, pour le regard de la Religion, à recevoir les escoliers pour estre instruictz ez universitez, colleges et escoles...”434 Though the main purpose of Nantes was to unite Catholics and Huguenots in France, it was subject to a long debate between

Huguenot parties and the king's commissionaires, as both groups felt ultimately jilted. Nevertheless, this edict was groundbreaking, and represented the fruition of all of Catherine's conciliatory efforts.

Despite many inhibiting factors that stood in her way, such as the lack of acceptance in France for a woman in a position of authority and traditional Salic law which legislated these dated beliefs, Catherine de' Medici set a new precedent for female political figures in France through her creation of a platform upon which she built her career as a political powerhouse. Catherine also strove to

431 Gray, 264. 432 “XII Édit de Nantes. Édit général,” Édition en ligne de l'École des chartres, accessed March 19th, 2014, http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_12. 433 http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_12. 434 Translation: “We order that there will be no distinction, for the regard of the Religion, to receive education for students at universities, colleges and schools.” http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_12. 100 establish political unity in France through the acceptance of the Huguenot faith.

Her edicts of Saint-Germain and Amboise allowed Huguenots limited rights to worship due to an opposing Catholic presence. Had Catherine legislated complete acceptance of the new faith, she would have lost the fragile stability she had been building since her instatement as Queen Regent. She realized that Catholic France was not yet willing to accept the complete legalization of the Huguenot faith, and created policies accordingly. So long as Catherine was in power or exerted influence over her son the king, she was free to enact her own policies independently. As Queen Mother of her children and her country, Catherine sought to create a stable country through the legislation of her conciliatory policies, which, through a more united religious front, would end conflict in

France.

101

Conclusion

This thesis has argued that through the effective manipulation of political imagery and the employment of conciliatory legislation, Catherine projected herself as wife, widow and mother of the last three Valois kings, and maintained her position as the leading political figure in France. She displayed a remarkable fusion of cunning and character, controlling religious conflict through her conciliatory policies to garner success while simultaneously pursuing her role as

Queen Mother. As evident in her three years as Queen Regent, Catherine consistently protected Charles IX from the domination of the Guise faction,435 and issued edicts which prevented Huguenots from the prospect of inquisition and granted them rights to worship in designated areas. Catherine acted as the mother of France, ensuring that her matriarchal image served to increase her power. The unity of her role as conciliator and her image as the mother of France continued until the Saint-Bartholomew's Day Massacre, when the continuation of her conciliatory policies would have meant an end to her power.

Catherine was forced to align herself with the Catholic faction after the massacre to ensure she maintain a position of political authority in France. It did not matter that the massacre was an accident, occurring largely due to the religious fervour of Paris; the climate in France had shifted, and Catherine was no

435 Crawford, 652. 102 longer able to offer political support to the Huguenot cause. Had she done so, she would have been instantly labelled a Huguenot sympathizer, and would have lost all influence at court. Catherine only stopped issuing conciliatory policies when doing so would have meant the difference between staying in power and becoming irrelevant. The largest consequence of this event for Catherine, apart from a change in political tactics, was the damage it caused her reputation. This event has served as a permanent smear on Catherine's historical record, though her involvement has never been proven outside of Coligny's assassination.

In a bid to maintain her power, Catherine abandoned her conciliatory policies after the massacre. The edicts she successfully issued as Queen Regent bear some reflection of her original political aspirations for France. The policies she was able to legislate, among which are included the Edicts of Saint-Germain and Amboise, do not represent the full scope of her vision of a religiously and politically united France, but rather the absolute limit of what French society would accept. Catherine sought to balance the political factions in France in the hopes that stability would ensue. The edicts do not reflect her personal beliefs, but rather what she thought would best ensure stability for herself and for France.

Catherine's vision would not come to fruition until 1598, when Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes which granted Huguenots complete freedom from religious and political persecution, as well as the rights to representation in judicial courts and to pursue an education.436 Even this edict did not last, however, and was ultimately revoked by Louis XIV in 1685.437

436 http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_12. 437 “Revocation of the Edict of Nantes,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed March 24th, 2014, 103

Appendix A

The Valois family tree.

Valois-Angoulême

Francis I

Henry II = Catherine de' Medici (1519-1559) (1519-1589) King 1535-1547

Francis II Charles IX Henry III Marguerite (1544-1560) (1550-1574) (1551-1589) (1553-1610) King 1559-1560 King 1560-1574 King 1574-1589 = = Mary Stuart Henry of Navarre

Source: Janet Glenn Gray, The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 16.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/348968/Louis-XIV/4295/Revocation-of-the- Edict-of-Nantes. 104

Appendix B

Catherine de’ Medici is pictured here in the traditional black dress of a widow, which she continued to wear for the rest of her life after the death of her husband, Henry II. This was done to create a link between herself and her husband, which would ensure she remain seen as his wife and allow her to exercise authority.

Source: François Clouet, Catherine de’ Medici, c. 1580, oil on panel, 33.7 x 25.4 cm, The Art Walters Museum.

105

Appendix C

Commissioned by the Guises, this enamel, titled Triumph of the Eucharist and of the Catholic Faith, was a piece of public art, and meant to show their opposition to Catherine de’ Medici’s conciliatory edicts.

Source: Léonard Limousin, The Triumph of the Eucharist and of the Catholic Faith, c. 1560-1570, enamel on copper, 19.2 x 25.1 cm, The Frick Collection.

106

Appendix D

François Dubois’ famous painting of the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre which occurred August 24th, 1572. Despite many historians such as Sir John Ernest Neale who blame her for this event, Catherine’s guilt remains unproven.

Source: François Dubois, Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, Musée cantonal des Beaux-arts de Lausanne.

107

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Casati, C. Charles, ed. Lettres royaux et lettres missives inédites. Paris: Librairie académique, 1877. Accessed March 23rd, 2014. http://ia700304.us.archive.org/3/items/lettresroyauxet00casauoft/lettresroy auxet00casauoft.pdf.

Clouet, François. Catherine de’ Medici. C. 1580. Oil on panel. 33.7 x 25.4 cm. The Art Walters Museum. Accessed March 20th, 2014. http://art.thewalters.org/images/art/large/l_pl9_37415_fnt_sl_t.jpg

Dubois, François. Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. Sixteenth century. Oil on panel. 94 x 154 cm. Musée cantonal des Beaux-arts de Lausanne. Accessed March 20th, 2014. http://www.folger.edu/imgdtl.cfm?imageid=1068&cid=1624.

“Édit d'Amboise.” Édition en ligne de l'École des chartres. Accessed March 11th, 2014. http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_02.

“Édit de Janvier.” Édition en ligne de l'École des chartres. Accessed March 11th, 2014. http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_01.

“Édit de Nantes. Édit général.” Édition en ligne de l'École des chartres. Accessed March 19th, 2014. http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_12.

Halsall, Paul, editor. Jacques-Auguste de Thou. “The Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, Aug. 24, 1572.” Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University. Accessed March 14th, 2014. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1572stbarts.asp.

Ferrière, Hector, ed. Lettres de Catherine de Médicis. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1880. Located at University of Toronto Libraries. Accessed January 26th, 2014. http://archive.org/stream/lettresdecatheri10cathuoft#page/n5/mode/2up.

Limousin, Léonard. The Triumph of the Eucharist and of the Catholic Faith. C. 1560-1570. Enamel on copper. 19.2 x 25.1 cm. The Frick Collection. Accessed March 20th, 2014. http://collections.frick.org/internal/media/dispatcher/263/resize:format=pr eview.

MacFarlane, I.D. The Entry of Henri II Into Paris: 16 June 1549. Binghamton: Centre for Medieval & Early Renaissance Studies, 1982.

108

Machiavelli, Niccolò. Christian E. Detmold, trans. The Prince. New York: Washington Square Press, Inc, 1968.

Mérimée, Prosper. Chronique du règne de Charles IX. Paris: Charpentier, 1842.

Noguères, Henri. The Massacre of Saint-Bartholomew. Translated by Claire Engel. New York: Macmillan, 1970. In Janet Glenn Gray, The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Oeuvres de François de La Mothe Le Vayer Tome VII, Part 2. Paris: 1759. In Paul Van Dyke, Catherine de Médicis, vol. II. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922. Accessed March 22, 2014. https://archive.org/details/catherinedemedic02vand.

“Paix de Monsieur. Édit de Paris dit de Beaulieu.” The French Wars of Religion: Important Primary Texts. Accessed March 15th, 2014. http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_07.

Secondary Sources:

“Agrippa d'Aubigné (1552-1630).” Éditions Arfuyen. Accessed November 6th, 2013. http://www.arfuyen.fr/html/ficheateur.asp?id_aut=1165.

“Anthony of Bourbon.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed January 6th, 2014. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27404/Anthony-of-Bourbon.

Balzac, Honoré de. About Catherine de' Medici. Philadelphia: Avil Publishing Company, 1901.

Barnett, Vincent. “Niccolo Machiavelli: the Cunning Critic of Political Reason.” History Review (2006). Accessed February 26th, 2014. http://www.histoytoday.com/vincent-barnett/niccolo- machiavelli- %E2%80%93-cunning-critic-political-reason.

Baumgartner, Frederic J. Henry II: King of France, 1547-1559. Durham: Duke University Press, 1988.

Baumgartner, Frederic J. Radical Reactionaries: the political thought of the French Catholic League. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1975.

“Beza at Geneva.” History of the Christian Church. Accessed February 14th, 2014. http://www.bible.ca/history/philip-schaff/8_ch19.htm.

109

"Catherine de' Medici (1519-1589)." BBC History. Accessed March 15th, 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/de_medici_catherine_shtml.

"Charles IX." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed March 15th, 2014. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/107197/Charles-IX.

Collier, Theodore. "Review: Catherine de Médicis by Paul Van Dyke." The American Historical Review vol. 28, no. 3 (April 1923). Accessed November 26th, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1836421.

"Conspiracy at Amboise." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed March 7th, 2014. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/18961/Conspiracy-of- Amboise.

Copenhaver, Brian. "Giovanni Pico della Mirandola." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012). Accessed December 21st, 2013. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pico-della- mirandola/.

Crawford, Katherine “Catherine de Medicis and the Performance of Political Motherhood.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 31, no. 3 (Autumn 2000): 643-673. Accessed September 18th, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2671075.

Diefendorf, Barbara. "Prelude to a Massacre: Popular Unrest in Paris, 1557- 1572." The American Historical Review vol. 90, no. 5 (December 1985): 1067-1091. Accessed February 1st, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1859659.

Diefendorf, Barbara. “Simon Vigor: A Radical Preacher in Sixteenth-Century Paris.” The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 18, no. 3 (Autumn 987): 399- 410. Accessed February 25th, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2540725.

Drouot, Henri. “Jean Héritier – Catherine de Medicis.” Revue d'histoire de l'Église de France vol. 27, no. 112 (1941): 243-245. Accessed December 22nd, 2013. http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rhef_0300- 9505_1941_num_27_112_2924_t1_0243_0000_4.

Dunn, Richard S. The Age of Religious Wars, 1559-1715. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1979.

Dumas, Alexandre. La Reine Margot: Part II. New York: The Century Co., 1909.

"Enrico Caterino Davila." Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911. Accessed November 6th, 2013. http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/d/enrico_caterino_davila.html.

110

Erlanger, Philippe. St. Bartholomew's Night: The Massacre of Saint- Bartholomew. Translated by Patrick O'Brian. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1962.

Ferguson, Margaret W., Maureen Quilligan and Nancy J. Vickers, eds. Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Ffolliott, Sheila. "Catherine de' Medici as Artemisia: Figuring the Powerful Widow." In Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe, edited by Margaret W. Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Fontana, Biancamaria. Montaigne's Politics: Authority and Governance in the Essais. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Geisendorf, Paul F. Théodore de Bèze. Geneva: Alexandre Jullien, 1967. In Janet Glenn Gray, The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Gray, Janet Glenn. The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Guest, John Marshall. "The Law and Lawyers of Honoré de Balzac." University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register vol. 60, no. 2 (November 1911). Accessed Dcember 21st, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3313188.

Hammond, Wayne G. and Christina Scull. “Milton Waldman.” Tolkein Gateway. Accessed December 22nd, 2013. http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Milton_Waldman.

Harrie, Jeanne. “The Guises, the Body of Christ, and the Body Politic.” The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 37, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 43-57. Accessed January 31st, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20477696.

Héritier, Jean. Catherine de' Medici. Translated by Charlotte Haldane. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1963.

“Holy League.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed February 26th, 2014. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/269823/Holy-League.

111

"Hugh Ross Williamson." Sophia Institute Press. Accessed November 24th, 2013. http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/cw_contributorinfo.aspx? ContribID=72&Name=Hugh+Ross+Williamson.

"Jacques-Auguste de Thou." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed November 6th, 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/593465/Jacques- Auguste-de-Thou.

Kalogridis, Jeanne. The Devil's Queen. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009.

Kingdon, Robert M. Myths About the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacres, 1572- 1576. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Knecht, Robert J. The French Renaissance Court: 1483-1589. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

Kreis, Steven. “Lecture 6: Europe in the Age of Religious Wars, 1560-1715.” The History Guide: Lectures on Early Modern European History. August 4th 2009. Accessed March 13th, 2014. http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html.

Leonardo, Dalia M. “'Cut off This Rotten Member': The Rhetoric of Heresy, Sin, and Disease in the Ideology of the French Catholic League.” The Catholic Historical Review vol. 88, no. 2 (April 2002): 247-262. Accessed February 11th, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25026145.

“Machiavellianism.” Dictionary Reference. Accessed December 20th, 2013. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machiavellianism?s=t.

Merriman, C.D. "Honoré de Balzac." The Literature Network (2006). Accessed December 20th, 2013. http://www.online-literature.com/honore_de_balzac.

Meyer, Carolyn. Duchessina. Boston: Graphia, 2007.

“Michel de L'Hospital.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed March 23rd, 2014. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338507/Michel-de- LHospital.

Neale, Sir John Ernest. The Age of Catherine de Medici. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Incorporated, 1962.

Neale, Sir John Ernest. “The Failure of Catherine de Medici.” In The French Wars of Religion, edited by J.H.M. Salmon. Lexington: D.C. and Heath Company, 1967.

112

"Parlement." The Free Dictionary. Accessed February 26th, 2014. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Parlement+of+Paris.

Parrow, Kathleen A. “Neither Treason nor Heresy: Use of Defence Arguments to Avoid Forfeiture during the French Wars of Religion.” The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 22, no. 4 (Winter 1991): 705-716. Accessed February 10th, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2542373.

Phillpott, Matthew J. "A Novel Approaches Prelude: A Brief History of Historical Fiction." Institute of Historical Research (2011). Accessed January 16th, 2014. http://ihrconference.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/mphillpott- history-of-historical-fiction.pdf.

Plaidy, Jean. Madame Serpent. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1951.

Rady, Martyn. France: Renaissance, Religion and Recovery, 1494-1610. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., 1988.

“Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed March 24th, 2014. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/348968/Louis- XIV/4295/Revocation-of-the-Edict- of-Nantes.

Roelker, Nancy Lyman. One King, One Faith: The Parlement of Paris and the Religious Reformations of the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

“Sheila Ffolliott.” The Medici Archive Project. Accessed December 21st, 2013. http://www.medici.org/board-trustees/sheila-ffoliott.

"Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed December 20th, 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/529629/Sir- Walter-Scott-1st-Baronet.

Sutherland, N. M. “Catherine de Medici: The Legend of the Wicked Italian Queen.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 9, no. 2, France in the Sixteenth Century (July 1978): 45-56. Accessed September 18th, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539662.

"Thomas Carlyle." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed November 27th, 2013. http://britannica.com/checked/topic/96126/Thomas-Carlyle.

"Valois Dynasty." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed February 26th, 2014. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/622379/Valois-Dynasty.

113

Van Dyke, Paul. Catherine de Médicis, vol. I. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922. Accessed February 13th, 2014. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt? id=uc2.ark:/13960/t3dz06f66;view=1up;seq=13.

Van Dyke, Paul. Catherine de Médicis, vol. II. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922. Accessed March 21, 2014, https://archive.org/details/catherinedemedic02vand.

Waldman, Milton. Biography of a Family: Catherine de' Medici and her Children. Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1936.

Walter, Elizabeth. “Obituary: Jean Paidy.” The Independent. January 20th, 1993. Accessed December 22nd, 2013. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-jean-plaidy- 1479699.html.

Warnock, Christopher. “History of Astrology in the Renaissance.” Renaissance Astrology (2002). Accessed December 18th, 2013. http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/astrologyinrenaissance.html.

Watson, Sir Francis. The Life and Times of Catherine de' Medici. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company Inc., 1935.

Williamson, Hugh Ross. Catherine de' Medici. New York: The Viking Press, 1973.

“Women and Gender Studies.” The College of New Jersey. Accessed December 22nd, 2013. http://wgs.pages.tcnj.edu/people/faculty/.

114