François Hotman: A Revolutionary's Ordeal [Reprint ed.] 9780691646190, 0691646198

Citation preview

FRANÇOIS

HOTMAN

Francois Hotman A R E V O L U T I O N A R Y ' S ORDEAL

BY D O N A L D R. K E L L E Y

P R I N C E T O N U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS

COPYRIGHT ©

1973

BY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

A L L RIGHTS RESERVED. N O part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by an electronic or mechanical means including information storage and retrieval systems without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer w h o may quote brief passages in a review. L.C. Card: 72-735 ISBN: 0-05206-9 Publication of this book has been aided by the W h i t n e y Darrow Publication Reserve Fund of Princeton University Press This book has been composed in Linotype Janson Printed in the United States of America by Princeton University Press, Princeton, N e w Jersey

This book is for (and in no small measure by): Ralph Giesey Julian Franklin John Salmon "Tous pour un, un pour tous."

PREFACE "L'art de fronder, boulverser les etats, est d'ebranler les coutumes etablies, en sondant jusque dans leur source, pour marquer leur defaut d'authorite et de justice. II faut, dit on, recourir aux lois fondamentales et primitives de l'etat, qui une coutume injuste a abolies. C'est une jeu sur pour tout perdre. . . ." Pascal, Pensees, I, ii, 9

FRANgois HOTMAN was one of the first modern revolutionaries. I say this with some apprehension, having like most historians been instilled with inhibitions about such flagrant anachronisms. And yet what else is the writing of history, especially the history of an alien and refractory period like the sixteenth century, but the translation of vanished styles of life and modes of thought into currently comprehensible terms—that is, the calculated and critical use of anachronism? In any case there are times when even the most cautious author may be permitted to suggest the universal significance of his particular subject, and I prefer to record my impression at the outset, where it may be admired or despised at once and so put aside, rather than to insert it surreptitiously into the story itself. At least I will be able to avoid that congenital failing of historians, undersimplification. Standing in the mainstream of the European revolutionary tradition, Hotman should be better known than he is. Born just as Lutheranism was being transformed into a political force, he lived through, helped to shape, and reflected upon one of the most tumultuous periods in European history. He combined in almost equal measure the active and contemplative life. A prodigy who was a published author before he was twenty, he became one of the most respected scholars of his age. A protege and collaborator of Calvin, on the other hand, he became deeply involved in ecclesiastical politics, Huguenot diplomacy, and Vll

PREFACE

eventually conspiracy. By the time he was forty, he had reached the peak of both careers. But then came a sharp reversal of fortune: the massacre of St. Bartholomew was a pivotal event not only of the civil wars in France but also of Hotman's life. It did not create but it did confirm his rebellious stance by sending him into permanent exile. His uprooted condition, reinforced by his fundamentalist religious convictions, led him precisely to the attitude referred to by Pascal, the desire "to return to the fundamental and primitive laws of the state"—and he indeed ended up by losing everything. "Revolutionary" is a fighting word, and no doubt qualifications must be made. I would not want to speak, for example, of a "revolutionary spirit of the French nobility" stemming from Merovingian times, as did one early nineteenth-century apologist, nor even of "the origins of the French revolution in the 16th century," as did another. But I would maintain that Hotman's particular response to his dilemma resulted in attitudes, arguments, and patterns of behavior essential to the phenomenon of social and political revolution in general. How else, in any case, can one humanly characterize a man who was a "rebel" by instinct as well as by indictment of contemporaries? For Hotman entered into revolt not only against the faith of his family and the authority of his father but also against the laws and eventually against the government of his country. How else characterize a man who was an almost compulsive intriguer? For Hotman voluntarily joined not only an outlawed and exiled community but also an organized opposition party and eventually more than one conspiracy aimed at giving this party control over the government. How else, finally, characterize a man who, though a universally respected academic scholar, became one of the leading ideologists of this party? For throughout his life Hotman sought to justify his subversive conduct by propaganda which vacillated between the most scurrilous invective and the most elevated appeals to legal principle and historical tradition. viii

PREFACE

"Universal significance," too, may be a somewhat provocative phrase. What I mean is partly the psychological and perhaps anthropological characteristics which a man may share with other men outside his own time, and partly the quality of a man's work which allows him to speak to men living in other ages besides his own. And so, especially in his best-selling Franco-Gallia, Hotman has done, though he might well be surprised at the message received by some of his posterity. The most striking interpretation was perhaps that of Michelet, who celebrated this "profound, true, and illuminating book" as revealing "the identity of barbaric liberty with modern liberty" and restoring "the historical consciousness of France." However old-fashioned, this is a most appropriate way of putting the case because it suggests that Hotman's success in transcending his age was the result of having his eyes at once on the past and on the future. That the objects of his gaze were a most ancient and indeed immemorial past and a highly idealized and indeed Utopian future—that Hotman was, in other words, both a fundamentalist and a Utopian—accounts for his extraordinary radicalism. In all ages, of course, there have been radicals: young men who react to the world with impatient idealism; bitter men who seek satisfaction from the subverting of established order; ignorant men who want to reshape the world in their own image; saintly men who hope to save the world from itself. Hotman was none of these, although at one time or another he displayed the features of each. Essentially he was a learned and responsible man with a great respect for tradition and no sympathy for innovations of any sort. But at the same time, he was a man with a mission, capable of the most intense fanaticism. His demands and his hopes were extravagant, his criticisms uncompromisingly moralistic, and he never hesitated to sacrifice his position for the sake of his "cause," which was to recover a lost innocence in political as well as religious terms, and to establish a community on this basis. That Hotman could not conceive IX

PREFACE

of such an ideal except in the context of his own country and inherited position accounts for his revolutionary stance. The source of Hotman's subversive character, then, lay both in his personality and in his life-situation, and here we find a number of paradoxes. If Hotman was a man who had deliberately run away from an orthodox and authoritarian father, he was also an extraordinarily devoted disciple of an even more authoritarian adopted "father" (as he called Calvin). If he was an embittered exile with an almost total allegiance to a "seditious" party, he was also a sentimental patriot, unable to give up either his national or his familial legacy. If he was an idealist practically uncapable of compromise, he was also a man of action with a full appreciation of the dangers as well as the delights of power, a Machiavellian (though the notion would have appalled him) as well as a Utopian, and personally, it should be added, not without a certain unscrupulous ambition. Basically his purpose was not so much to change the world, it may be inferred, as to insure the existence of his party (and so his own future). The difficulty was that the existence of this party ran absolutely counter to the values of the established society of his time. Ultimately, it was circumstance as much as conviction which led Hotman to his position. Yet has this not normally been the case in the history of thought, especially of political thought? Even in ages when pure reason has provided the style of discourse, political ideologies have been fashioned more by the force of events than by argument from logical premises, and indeed have arisen from the ruins of unquestioned premises which events have made obsolete or irrelevant. "Nihil in intellectu," runs the Aristotelian maxim, "quod non fuerit prius in sensu"—or as the old Marxian saw has it, life determines consciousness, not consciousness life. This was certainly true of Hotman, whose views of political resistance, though formulated in the most conventional legal and historical terms, were the product of an insoluble dilemma: the conflict between an old orthodoxy that postulated religious unix

PREFACE

formity and a new ideology that, outside its Genevan headquarters at least, demanded "liberty of conscience." This was an explosive combination, and Hotman was one of the first and most persistent of those ready to ignite it. Ministers of the faith could pretend not to see this dilemma, but Hotman, trained as a lawyer, could not avoid facing it. So he found his revolutionary calling. There are other reasons for an examination of Hotman's life. If he was not the greatest jurist of his age (the most heroic age of modern jurisprudence), he was surpassed by no more than two or three contemporaries, and for sheer versatility he was matched by none. Hotman also gained distinction as a teacher, a classical scholar, a dialectician, and to some extent as a theologian. If Hotman could not claim to be a statesman, he did advise or represent some of the major figures of his day, including Antoine and Henry of Navarre, Louis and Henry of Conde, Calvin, Beza, and such German princes as Philip and William of Hesse and the Elector Palatine Friedrich III; and he was one of the most prolific and effective propagandists of his age. If he was not the most successful diplomat among his contemporaries, few could claim experience as wide and varied, and certainly none commented more voluminously and acutely on the events of the civil wars than Hotman, whose letters and journalistic reports as well as published books constitute a primary source of inestimable value. For this reason, as well as for his pioneering researches into early French history, Hotman also ranks as one of the most able historians of the sixteenth century. But I do not offer these items as justifications. What in fact decided me to undertake this biography was simply the belief that Hotman's life, suitably described in the context of his age, would make an uncommonly interesting story (though sometimes, I must confess, writing it has been a bit like taking a few buttons and sewing a coat on them—or alternately, cutting a somewhat arbitrary pattern out of a superabundance of material). Following Hotman around Euxi

PREFACE

rope and turning over his literary remains and relics in dozens of libraries and archives in a half-dozen countries has not increased my affection for the man, but it has reinforced this original belief. Whether the story has relevance as well as interest—utilitas as well as voluptas, as Hotman would have put it—is for others to judge. In any case, Hotman does offer a somewhat novel angle of vision from which to view the upheavals of his time. For one thing, he was a striking representative of a new type of individual— an "intellectual" we may anachronistically call him—who not only was conscious of and helped to shape history through his polemic, but who contributed much to our own interpretation of the sixteenth century through his more considered writings. For another thing, he represented both a class expropriated because of its convictions and an exile community instrumental in preparing the way for civil war and in creating the means to continue it. For Hotman these circumstances brought only tragedy; for us they may provide various insights not easily available to the general historian or to the biographer of figures that are "major" according to standards of status which were accepted in the sixteenth century. Through his eyes, for example, we can see something of the motives of a disaffected generation which was to bring about, as well as to live through, one of the most demoralizing and destructive civil wars in history. We can see the role of the university in captivating, indoctrinating, and organizing members of this generation, and in providing both an institutional and an ideological basis for political resistance. And we can see, in the intrigues, laments, quarrels, and belligerent applications of book-learning of intellectuals, some of the ways in which a resistance movement takes shape, gains momentum, and becomes self-conscious. In short, we can see—in the particular terms of sixteenth-century religion and politics (and these terms will become very particular indeed)—the makings of a revolution, or at least of a revolutionary. xu

PREFACE

book has received support and constructive criticism from many quarters. A fellowship from the American Council of Learned Societies made possible a year's travel in Europe (the itinerary of which is reflected in the list of libraries and archives at the end of the book), while the incomparable facilities and environment of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton gave me the time and incentive to assemble the material thus gathered. Other related researches were supported by the American Philosophical Society, the Folger Shakespeare Library, and by grants from the State University of New York at Binghamton. On the personal side I have equally profound debts. First to those who read major portions of the manuscript: Felix Gilbert, Ralph Giesey, Julian Franklin, John Salmon, Samuel Kinser, and Fritz Stern; next to those who offered various types of assistance in the course of the undertaking: Guido Kisch, Alain Dufour, Olivier Fatio, Natalie Davis, I. L. Leeb, Rigo Mignani, Richard Jackson, and librarians and archivists too numerous to mention; again to my two teachers most responsible for the turn my interests have taken, Paul O. Kristeller and the late Garrett Mattingly; and finally to Nancy and John Reed Kelley, who made the long trek with me and who also have had difficulty telling the good guys from the bad guys in this story. Most important has been the ever-present counsel of my three fellow Hotmaniacs, to whom the book is dedicated and whom I think of as the Athos, Porthos, and Aramis of this enterprise. We have our little differences (and not the least about Hotman) ; but we ride the same roads, fight the same outlandish battles, and enjoy the same cuisine. THIS

24 August 1971

Princeton, N. J.

xiii

CONTENTS PREFACE

VII

I . INTRODUCTION: A N A G E OF R E V I V A L

Europe, 1525

3

I I . T H E M A K I N G OF A PROTESTANT

Paris, 1524-1548

11

I I I . I N THE SHADOW OF C A L V I N

Geneva-Lausanne, 1548-1555 IV. A

42

CONFUSION OF T O N G U E S

Strasbourg, i555-1558

71

V . T H E T I M E OF THE T I G E R

Strasbourg, 1558-1561

99

V I . T H E T I M E OF THE W H O R E

Strasbourg-Châtillon, 1561-1563

130

V I I . INTERLUDE: A N A G E OF REVOLUTION

Europe, 1564

168

V I I I . T O G A AND SWORD

Valence-Bourges, 1563-1571

179

I X . MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY

Geneva, 1572 X.

205

KULTURKAMPF

Geneva, 1573-1576

227

X I . D E PROFUNDIS

Geneva-Basel, 1576-1584 XII. A

264

BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

Geneva-Basel, 15 84-1590

2 92 xv

CONTENTS XIII.

CONCLUSION: A N AGE OF RESOLUTION

Europe, 1594

xvi

327

APPENDICES

335

SOURCES

347

INDEX

361

FRANCOIS HOTMAN

I. I N T R O D U C T I O N : A N A G E OF R E V I V A L "If only Luther would be still!" Melanchthon EUROPE,

1525

THE GREAT news of the year was the defeat of the French by the imperial army at Pavia. The epic struggle of the Hapsburg and Valois giants had ended on an unheroic note, and with Francis I languishing in a Spanish prison, only his "life and honor" intact, observers hardly knew what to expect. Charles V was not only without peer, he was without rival. There were ominous signs, it is true, in Germany, where the more resentful princes were in the process of forming an alliance to protect their hard-won liberties. But Charles' Spanish kingdoms were peaceful, he was on good terms with his uncle, Henry VIII of England, and above all he was master in Italy. What would be the result of this unprecedented imbalance of power? According to one old hand at the business of political forecasting, there were only two real alternatives. Either the Emperor would keep the King in his possession, Machiavelli told his old friend Guicciardini, or else the King would be freed and would respect the terms of the treaty.1 The third possibility, that the King, once freed, would go back on his word, Machiavelli dismissed as altogether too Machiavellian. So did Charles, who still clung to the old chivalric code. But Francis had no such inhibitions. He preferred the example of Louis XI to that of Louis IX, and to the scandal of Christendom and of Christendom's Emperor, he chose his advantage above his "honor." He agreed to the Treaty of Madrid just long enough to secure his own freedom. 1

To Guicciardini, 15 Mar. 1526. 3

INTRODUCTION Political predictions are hazardous at best, but Machiavelli's analysis was faulty in a more fundamental way than merely failing to guess which way the French King would jump. He had acquired his education, and lost his illusions, in the earlier stages of these Italian wars, and he looked at the most recent scenes with the same eyes. He sought, and so of course he found, the same objectives, the same motives, and the same tricks. Like most men brought up in the Italian school of diplomacy, he assumed that the game of politics, though superficially shifting, was basically constant; the players changed but the rules remained in force. Since the election of Charles as Emperor six years before, the game had no doubt been simplified, the field reduced from a small-scale free-for-all to a large-scale duel. But this changed the pattern, not the substance, of politics. The shady maneuvering surrounding the imperial election and the subsequent conduct of the war only confirmed Machiavelli's opinion, and not even an upset like Pavia could change it. It is hard to see how he could have been more mistaken. Already coming into play was a new factor which would make the old rules obsolete and confound the calculations of the cynical and the chivalric alike. With the coming of Lutheranism the crusading spirit was restored to European politics, this time turned inwardly, and in its wake appeared all the idealism and fanaticism, all the proselytizing zeal and savage reprisals, all the religious vision and moral blindness that this tradition implied. Increasingly, dynastic rivalry was shaped by national sentiment and religious commitment, and the involvement of all classes of society added a dimension to politics which Machiavelli was ill-prepared to recognize. Not that he overlooked the force of nationality, but it seemed to him so fragmented and subject to dynastic ambition that he did not take it seriously. Nor was he blind to the significance of religion; on the contrary, he regarded it as a primary source of political strength and popular morale. But its role in statecraft was ancillary: it was 4

INTRODUCTION

not a compass but only another sail, or perhaps an anchor, on the ship of state. Politics was a matter for professionals like himself. Guicciardini could not have agreed more. Looking back over these troubled years, he could not fail to notice the banning of Luther, but he saw it only as a minor factor in the rapprochement between the Emperor and the Pope. Even later, when Luther's noxious doctrines were obviously getting out of hand, Guicciardini was content to treat them as mere "pretexts" for more concrete (and more comprehensible) designs.2 Such were the assumptions of the generation of 1494—of the men whose political consciousness was shaped by the struggles for Italy following the invasion by Charles VIII. It is not only in the twentieth century that men have proclaimed "the end of ideology." This was the message, too, of Machiavelli and of Guicciardini and the unconscious assumption of most men of affairs, including both Francis I and Charles V. Nor was this attitude without foundation: the diplomatic "game at chess" and the selective application of military force—the ways of the fox and the lion—had become a way of life in this generation. Ideals, when they were not pretexts, were dreams; idealists, when they were not hyprocrites, were martyrs (like Savonarola); and history was made by men who knew better. Yet generations have a way of turning things about. Where Machiavelli went astray was in trying to elevate an historical insight (or a professional reflex) into a metaphysical principle, that is, in identifying a political style with the human condition. The very sharpness of his focus blinded him to a revolution that was taking place before his eyes, a revolution all the harder to detect because it came, at least in part, from below. What he saw as a monkish quarrel was in fact a movement not only to reform the ecclesiastical establishment, which was subversive enough, but actually to remake the world in the image of primitive Christianity. 2

Guicciardini, Storia d'ltalia, xiv, 1.

5

INTRODUCTION The novelty of this arose not from the goal itself, which had been professed by reformers of all sorts for centuries, but rather from the explosive encounter between inherited power struggles and a doctrine possessing an enormous reserve of popular support and fired by a wide range of discontents and ambitions. The return of ideology—and of martyrdom—to the European scene marked the end of "the age of Machiavelli." Setting a new style of politics, Lutheranism also created a new view of the past. The revival of ecclesiastical history promoted by German Protestants was much more than a deplorable reaction to the general "secularization" of historical studies, as it has so often been represented; it was also a necessary result of the conviction that history could not be grasped without paying attention to religious ideas and institutions. History may not have become eschatological, but eschatology was very definitely having an effect upon history. Thus, when Johann Sleidan, the first and best of Protestant historians, set out to explain the character of his age, he found it necessary to make his book a twofold commentary on both the state and religion.3 He was obviously no Guicciardini. He did not organize his materials well, he offered few penetrating analyses of policies or of personalities, and toward the heroes of his story he was credulous to the point of hagiography. What he did provide, however, was a perspective from which the disorders of the sixteenth century were intelligible. Without neglecting the old drumand-trumpet history or the new diplomatic history entirely (for he realized that political habits persisted), he devoted most of his narrative to the rise and spread of Protestantism. He opened his story not with the spring of 1494 but with All Saints' Eve of 1517, and he widened his view in order to take in people of all classes. This was not because Sleidan was a better historian than Guicciardini or Machia3

Sleidan, De Statu religionis et republicae . . . commentarii (Strasbourg, 1556), esp. Ch. III. 6

INTRODUCTION

velli, but because he realized that religion had come to oc­ cupy the center of the stage and that "those of the religion" had joined the politicians as makers of history. This transformation of politics produced by social up­ heaval cannot be understood apart from the intellectual re­ vival which was reaching maturity in the sixteenth century. If political leaders continued to figure most prominently in the explosions to come, it was the intellectuals who had set the powder train. The prime mover, indeed the patron saint of "intellectuals" down to the present day, was Erasmus, who indeed accomplished a kind of revolution—not so much in the muckraking satires of the Roman church, for this sort of thing had long been a staple of light literature and of heavy sermons; but rather in his philological and historical examination of the Bible. In his Novum Instrumentum of 1516 Erasmus, rejecting the hermetic and hierocratic learning of university men, had violated the monop­ oly of professional theologians. Worse, by declaring the independence of the "grammatical" method, he had broken the hegemony of theology itself and generally cast doubt upon the transcendental claims of the papacy. In the words of Martin Bucer, it was Erasmus who laid the egg that Luther hatched and—to extend this homely metaphor— that went into the making of a dish never intended by either. But of course it took men of very different purpose, then as now, to appreciate the destructive preliminaries necessary for the creation of an omelette. Yet even Erasmus did not quite move history by intellect alone (any more than Luther did by faith alone). If he lacked power and wealth, he did have two most effective allies whose impact was just beginning to be felt. The first of these was the printing press. "The restitution and per­ petuation of antiquity," as one enthusiast called it,4 the art of printing was also becoming a potent force in shaping the future. To it not only Erasmus but Luther and Calvin owed much of their success. Whether grinding out ponderous *Guillaume Bude, De l'Institution du prince (Paris, 1547), Ρ· 63.

7

INTRODUCTION treatises, popular booklets, or inflammatory "placards," the printing press was a terrible weapon that provoked terrible retribution, which included not only an almost totalitarian censorship but also capital punishment. (In this age of ideology the gibbet was almost as appropriate a symbol as the printing press itself.) Second and no less significant for the propagation of the Protestant faith was the establishment of new schools, or the reformation of old ones. Here, too, the Lutheran movement was building upon humanist foundations, combining religious indoctrination with liberal education in the classical fashion. Born in the university, Lutheranism would depend for its survival on the university, since it was here that the next generation would be enlisted and new leaders trained. The threat to orthodoxy posed by the schools was also recognized by the authorities; but the attempt to set up controls of education, like censorship of books, was usually more effective in calling attention to new ideas than in suppressing them. "Ideology" implies not only a coherent and persuasive set of ideas but a segment of society receptive to these ideas. The growing instability and insecurity of sixteenth-century life, the dissolution of social ties and economic guarantees which accompanied urbanization, and the introduction of new modes of production and distribution provided just the conditions for the accommodation of Protestantism as a permanent force. Not that this meant, at least to begin with, a specific correlation between Protestant doctrines and the commercial classes. Outside of the intellectual community, in fact, it was the lower classes that were first attracted to the new opinions. Within Germany the most susceptible group was the peasantry; elsewhere it was the artisans, who were coming to constitute, though sporadically, a troublesome urban proletariat. As late as 1534, Francis I could attribute "Lutheran" error largely to "people of low status and lower understanding." 5 5

8

Bulaeus, VI, 252-53. Full citation for this and other general sources

INTRODUCTION By this time, it is true, the King's information was somewhat out of date. The middle classes were thoroughly infected, and nearly fifty towns were noticeably touched by heresy. The leading propagators of the "so-called reformed religion" naturally came first from the clergy, especially from the regular clergy, but increasingly they were joined by laymen, including schoolmasters, printers, and—most notoriously of all—lawyers. Last to be converted were the nobles. Within a generation after the infiltration of Lutheranism into France, heresy had acquired a nation-wide organization, a foothold in the feudal establishment, growing support from outside France itself, and consequently an unprecedented political significance. For Europe in general these were the augurs of political change in the second quarter of the sixteenth century: a legacy of destructive wars and petty feuds; a rising wave of religious protest and national enthusiasm; a large number of malcontents ready to accept a cause which might console them for the status or security they lacked; technical means for reaching such people through propaganda or education; and finally the decline or discrediting of institutions, whether in support of Christian unity or balance-ofpower politics, which might check these tendencies. In these converging forces some perceptive observers, even at that time, could see the makings of disaster. FRANCE, MIDSUMMER

1524

The climate of opinion is best expressed by this entry which appears in the diary of a middle-class citizen of Paris: At this time it was believed that the Kingdom of France was suffering all the torments that God customarily visits upon a people with whom He is angry. First came wars . . . , which had started in the year 1520 and which have may be found in the list of Abbreviations for Major Published Sources, pp. 349-51.

9

INTRODUCTION lasted ever since. Then came famine, plague, especially in 1519 and 1522, and then great floods, storms, and earthquakes in many countries. Then internal seditions, that is, prince against prince, as the King of France against M. de Bourbon and other great persons. Finally, and worst of all, the errors and poisonous doctrines of Luther, together with disturbances, pillages, and extor­ tions from the people, who are threatened on every side with taxes and thefts by soldiers. Afterwards came the terrible and universal misfortune to the crops sown in the kingdom because of the frosts of the previous winter. Then the conspiracy of foreign enemies to burn and to despoil the good cities of the kingdom. So both the rich and the poor have good reason to wonder if they will ever have peace or anyone to care for the kingdom. 6 It was into such a world—a world of intellectual revival and religious reform, of moral revulsion and (at least po­ tentially) social revolution—that Francois Hotman was born. β

Nicolas Versoris, Livre de raison, ed. G. Fagniez (Paris, 1885), p. 135.

10

II. T H E M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T PARIS,

Ι 524-1

548

"Bon jurisconsulte, mauvais chrestien." Brantome (sixteenth-century proverb) PARIS, THURSDAY, 23

AUGUST

1524

( S A I N T BARTHOLOMEW'S E V E )

IT HAD been a hot, troubled, plague-threatened summer. The war with the Emperor was not going at all well. The shock of the Constable Bourbon's treason was still fresh. Just two weeks earlier, his chancellor had been taken to the Bastille, and at this very moment the Constable himself was leading an attack against the walls of Marseille. In the city there had been an alarming increase in brigandage, owing to bands of hoodlums roving the streets. 1 Warnings went out to tavern keepers and to police sergeants, who were for­ bidden to drink with these bad boys, these mauvais gargons. Some vagrants were expelled from the city. In June a panic had been started by news of a disastrous fire in Troyes, allegedly set by secret enemies of the realm. These incendiaries might be anywhere, it was suspected, and the authorities were disturbed enough to ban the cus­ tomary street fires, to impose a nine o'clock curfew, to throw a group of noisy Germans into prison for a short time, and to execute at least two hapless transients. These simmering fears were intensified, of course, by the growing menace of heresy, which the government had been tracking down for the past year. 1

Versoris, Livre de raison, p. 140; Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris, ed. L. Lalanne (Paris, 1854), p. 199; Pierre Driart, Chronique parisienne, ed. F. Bournois (Paris, 1893), p. 93; Chronique du roy Francoys, ed. G. Guiffrey (Paris, i860), p. 33; Registre des deliberations du Bureau de la ville de Paris, 1, ed. F. Bonnardot (Paris, 1883), 275 (10 June). 11

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T Altogether these were uneasy times, but for at least one man they were happy times as well. Pierre Hotman, Sieur de Villiers-Saint-Paul and advocate in the Parlement of Paris, could look with satisfaction on his commission, signed just two months earlier by the King, as lieutenant-general of waters and forests.2 And on this particular day he could rejoice in the birth of his first child. Francois Hotman, born into the feudal and office-holding nobility, obviously had a vital stake in the French establishment. Throughout his life he was unreservedly and irreversibly a French gentleman, a partisan of the monarchy and its institutions. Yet his heritage was Germanic as well as bourgeois, and his instincts as well as his destiny were bound up with the land of his forebears. His grandfather Lambert, son of Gerard, was a Silesian burger who had come to France with Duke Engelbert of Qeves and had settled there after 1470. Hotman himself maintained some relations with the German side of his family, the "Hottmanns," who were still flourishing, Bayle assures us, during the seventeenth century in the Silesian capital of Breslau. In France there were four main branches of the family, all derived from Lambert, who died in 1514, leaving eight children.3 Of these a few went into the church, more into the magistracy. Frangois' father, Pierre, the fifth son of Lambert, enjoyed a successful legal career. He spent twenty years at the "marble table," that is, in the jursidiction of waters and forests, performing valuable services of "reformation," which is to say of augmenting royal privilege. In 1544 he was rewarded 2

Catalogue des actes de Frangois Ier (Paris, 1887-1908), I, 582; IV, 699; VI, 278, 421, 436, 480. 3 Paris AN, M.M. 818, 53; Y. 91, 1872 and 103; BN Fr, Melanges de Colbert, 80, f. 79; cf. Dictionnaire de la noblesse. Letters to "Marcus Othman a Rakowitz" of Breslau and to William Stuckius (Ep 41, 171). There are numerous permutations and combinations of the spelling of "Hotman," or "Hotoman," or (Latinized) "Hotomanus" —with or without the H, with one or two t's (or a th) and/or two n's. For a short genealogy see Appendix I.

12

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T with the charge of Conseiller in the Parlement of Paris, and he continued to carry out his duties with unswerving loyalty both to his King and to his King's faith. He died in 1555, leaving his widow Paule (nee de Marie) and eleven children, six of them sons, and a substantial estate which included at least two houses within Paris and certain lands in the Ile-de-France. Such was Frangois Hotman's legacy. As eldest son he was expected to inherit both his father's fief and his office and of course to follow the legal career planned for him. Given his strong sense of family and property, this was certainly the most natural course. Yet it turned out otherwise. Before succeeding to his patrimony or even settling into a profession, Hotman fled from his family. Time and again he turned away from his homeland, taking up the life of adventurer, vagrant scholar, part-time diplomat, and conspirator, eventually to die in an alien German city whose language, despite his antecedents and sympathies, he did not fully understand and whose faith he could not accept. W h y he chose this fate is the central problem of his life. The fires which heralded Hotman's birth were prognostics of his future career. At the same time, they were advance warnings of a more general conflagration which, like the Hotman family itself, had its source in Germany. Scarcely three years before, Luther had taken his obstinate and archetypal stand and recently had come out of his place of hiding at the Wartburg to join his impatient comrades at Wittenberg. Chief among these was Philip Melanchthon, whom Hotman would encounter more than once in later years. News of the recent peasant uprisings in southern Germany had shocked public opinion in Europe, and although Luther disclaimed all responsibility, his critics, including the French King as well as the Emperor Charles V and Henry VIII of England, were hardly to be persuaded of this. The question of guilt apart, it may be suggested that Luther had neither the interest nor the intellectual means to grasp the social and political consequences 13

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

of his act. He was not alone in his ignorance, of course, for these consequences were, and indeed still are, incalculable. What he had done was not only to confound old patterns of belief but also to deepen and eventually to make irreconcilable long-standing political rivalries. Not only did he hasten the coming of that fate most dreaded by Christians, religious schism, but he also prepared the ground for that condition which to ancients and moderns alike has been the political equivalent of death—civil war. Many men have sought to change the world; no man has done this quite so profoundly, so permanently, and at the same time so inadvertently as Luther. But he did not live to see the full fury of the storm he had provoked. It was Hotman's generation that was to reap the whirlwind. In France, although the storm itself was a long time in coming, the winds of Lutheran doctrine were felt almost at once. To most would-be reformers, including Erasmus' great rival Lefevre d'Etaples and one of Hotman's future patrons, Guillaume Farel, these winds seemed refreshing, even life-giving. To the ecclesiastical authorities, on the other hand, they brought an odor not only of heresy but of sedition. Even before the Diet of Worms, the Sorbonne had condemned Lutheran ideas and had been supported by the Parlement of Paris. The reactions of these august bodies, spurred intermittently by the King, seemed to serve better as a measure of than as a deterrent to heresy. The contagion spread rapidly not only through sermons, popular songs, and subversive literature, but also through the spectacular publicity provided by burning heretics. There could hardly be a more effective way to advertise a cause. More than any other act, martyrdom represented a direct "imitation of Christ" and, like the more passive forms of Christian humanism, an attempt to return to the values of antiquity. "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church," quoted by all sixteenth-century martyrologists, was a principle believed no less fervidly by Protestants than by their early Christian models. 14

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T It was just a year before Hotman's birth that Parisians had gathered to watch the first of such spectacles, the cynosure of which was Jean Valliere, a self-styled hermit. Burning along with him in the Place de Notre-Dame was a pile of books that had been found in the possession of a more distinguished trouble-maker, Louis Berquin, who was Luther's first notable French disciple.4 This was Berquin's first brush with the law but not his last. Less than six years later, despite the support of the King's sister Marguerite de Navarre, he followed his books into the flames in the Place de Greve, and the French reformers had their first great martyr. If Hotman did not witness this event, he had many chances to watch other executions during the next decade. T o visit one of the most popular sites for these affairs, Hotman had only to walk a few steps down his block, the little Rue de Bievre, to the Place Maubert. This was the place where the King sometimes enjoyed symbolic little plays staged for his benefit. This was the place, too, where university students could most conveniently attend executions staged (at least in part) for their benefit. Where today stands the statue of another "martyr of the Renaissance," Etienne Dolet, burned in 1546, was in Hotman's time a gibbet. 5 He must have passed it dozens of times on his way to classes or coming back from the booksellers on the Rue St.-Jacques. Whatever his youthful contact with the phenomenon, he was certainly deeply affected by the psychology of martyrdom. He saw more than one of his friends received into the tradition of martyrs and at times expected some such fate himself. 4 Journal cFun bourgeois, p. 169; Versoris, Livre de raison, p. 122; Driart, chronique parisienne, p. 78. Cf. John Vienot, Promenades a travers le Paris des martyrs 1523-1559 (Paris, 1913), and Pierre Champion, Paris au temps de la Renaissance (Paris, 1935). 5 The gibbet appears, e.g., in the maps of Paris made by Josse de Reveau (1575) and by Truchet and Hoyau (mid-sixteenth century); it remained at least from 1520 to 1609.

15

MAKING OF A P R O T E S T A N T

When Hotman was ten years old, the fortunes of French Protestantism reached a turning point. This was in 1534, "the year of the placards." During the fall a certain Feret, apprentice to the King's apothecary, had broadsides printed in Neuchatel "against the abuse of the Mass and popish inventions."6 They were posted all over the city and surely in Hotman's neighborhood (where in the 1960's could be seen posters of a student revolutionary group, the "Etienne Dolet" club). In itself, of course, there was nothing new in distributing placards; the Germans had been doing it for years. But King Francis I, "father of letters" as he might be to some, felt most uncordial toward some of the new uses to which printing was being put; and this time, in any case, the French mischief-makers had gone too far. They fastened a placard to the door of the royal bedchamber in the castle of Amboise and even placed one in the bowl where Francis left his handkerchief. To disturb the peace of the kingdom was criminal; to disturb that of the King himself was treasonable. The display of royal temper the following morning can be imagined. It was magnificent and grew with the telling. Defenders of law and order everywhere were shocked, and even Lutherans sympathized with the King. Among other casualties of this affair was Melanchthon's conciliatory mission to France, which had been planned for the summer but which now would never take place. Whether this encounter furnished the cause or merely the occasion, the reaction of the King was, or at least should have been, unmistakable. On Wednesday, 13 January 1535, he sent an edict to the Parlement forbidding further practice of the art of printing, though afterward he agreed not to enforce this absurd directive. On the following Tuesday, 6

Crespin, I, 297; Sleidan, De Statu religionis, p. 253; Chronique du roy Francoys, p. 110; Registre des deliberations . . . , II, ed. A. Tuetey (Paris, 1886), 192 (19 and 34 Oct.); Florimond de Raemond, Histoire de la naissance, progrez et decadence de I'heresie de ce Steele (Rouen, 1648), p. 859. Cf. Lucien Febvre, Au Coeur religieux du XVIe Steele (Paris, 1957), pp. 162-71.

16

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

carrying a burning torch, he walked through the streets of Paris, leading a procession which included the Cardinal of Lorraine and representatives of the monastic orders as well as both of his sons and the princes of the blood. After a spectacular Mass he vowed punishment for the so-called "Lutherans," and indeed the festivities were concluded with the burning of six of the culprits. Like Berquin, this new crop of martyrs died with fortitude, as we are told by their chroniclers Jean Crespin and Johann Sleidan—who both later became friends and colleagues of Hotman.7 The tongues of some were pierced to prevent them from offering any last-minute advice; the hands of some were also cut off. But this was an ironic as well as a vicious kind of symbolism: the French Reformation as a whole was neither silenced nor disarmed. And if afterwards it became a basically underground movement, this by no means made it less attractive, or less accessible, to venturesome young men like Hotman. PARIS, LATIN QUARTER,

1536

It was the passing of an age, or so it seems in retrospect. The last voices of the older generation—the pre-Lutheran generation—were silenced. Both Erasmus and Lefevre d'Etaples died this year, while their great colleague Guillaume Bude had published his last book the year before and would live his remaining four years in taciturn and disapproving silence. Meanwhile, a new generation was appearing to take up and to transform the ideal of Christian humanism which these older men, each in his own way, had championed. Two of the most prominent of Hotman's future comrades—Petrus Ramus and Jean Calvin—were just making their mark upon the republic of letters. In this year Ramus defended his notorious (as it may seem to us) master's thesis denying the authority of Aristotle ("that every7

Gilles Corrozet, Les Antiqukez

de Paris (Paris, 1586), f. 157.

17

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T thing Aristotle wrote was false"), and Calvin published his Institution of Christian Religion, a book which was, what­ ever its author's intentions and whatever our intellectual tastes, the most revolutionary publication of that century. Calvin had finished the work the previous summer and, from his exile in Basel, had dedicated it to Francis I, who as "father of letters" and as Charles V's chief rival still seemed the best hope for reform. It was precisely on Hotman's eleventh birthday, as it happened, that Calvin signed this dedicatory epistle to the book that, more than any other, would determine the course of his life. Altogether it was an auspicious if perilous time for a young boy, a prodigy by the standards even of that prodigious century, to begin his studies at the University of Paris. Like Calvin, Hotman was from beginning to end a hu­ manist, a devotee of the best traditions and achievements of the Renaissance. His very first recorded statements were in praise of Greek and Latin literature and their essential har­ mony, while among his very last words, made in exile, when he was ill and at the point of despair, was the Senecan warning that "Life without letters is death." 8 Indeed Hotman's enthusiasm for "good letters" was only slightly less in­ tense than his enthusiasm for "true religion," and he never seemed to feel uneasy about the conflicting claims of Gcero and of Christ. For him both were vital parts of the "new learning," according to the new meaning acquired by the conventional humanist phrase. By contrast Bude, though the greatest of French "humanists" and a sharp critic of the papacy, felt increasingly ambivalent toward classical litera­ ture. The cocksure attitude of men like Calvin, Ramus, and Hotman is one of the most conspicuous signs of a conflict between generations at this time. There were others. Like Erasmus, for example, Bude had 8

Prefaces to Tabulae de criminibus, "Lectori," ι May 1543, and to Batrachomyomachia, "Matthaeo Paillarto avunculo et Mecoenati suo," 13 Nov. 1543; "Album amicorum 1589-1593" of Rolandus de Weert, Antwerp (Leiden, MS Ltk, 1077, p. 20). 18

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T very old-fashioned ideas about the role of letters: it was to enlighten, not to enflame. The "new learning" of the reformers was something utterly different from that which had excited him in his youth, and he turned against Luther even before Erasmus did. What is more, having been appointed a Maitre des Requetes in 1522, Bude became increasingly committed to royal policy and alienated from popular causes. As one of Berquin's judges he had pleaded with him, as one man of learning to another, to recant—but not with the King to reconsider the sentence.9 The sorriest performance of all was his last work, in which he gave up "philology" for "philotheory" and completed his symbolic "transition from Hellenism to Christianity." The major distinction of this tedious sermon, which justified the King's persecutions of the "rebels" who had staged the affair of the placards, was that it helped to provoke the classic counterstatement of the reforming party, Calvin's Institution. It is ironic that in later years Calvin welcomed to Geneva Bude's widow and three of his children, who fled to escape just such persecution and to join the "rebels." They settled just a few doors from Calvin, and at least two of the sons Hotman numbered among his close friends. T o Hotman the elder Bude was "a man . . . that loved his country . . . , though he knew not yet fully what difference there was between Christ and antichrist." Yet he was much more than this; he was also the true founder of that tradition of French humanism in which Hotman was to assume so distinguished a place, and it is a measure of his achievement that Protestants continued to honor his memory, as they did that of Erasmus. Bude was justified in his claim to be a "pioneer."10 He could remember the time when a man 9 Crespin, I, 285. Bude, De Transitu hellenismi ad christianismum (Paris, 1535), published by Robert Estienne; cf. Joseph Bohatec, Bude und Calvin (Graz, 1950), and Daniel Penham's edition and translation (unpub. diss., Columbia, 1954). 10 To Dreux Bude, 24 Dec. 1520, Epistolae posteriores (Paris, 1522), f. 102'. Cf. Hotman, Brutum Fulmen, p. i n .

19

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

had to blaze his own trail through the classics, without the help of dictionaries or commentaries. Nowadays (1522), he told his son, antiquity was accessible to anyone. To that circumstance no one had contributed more than Bude himself. His philological work on the Greek language and on Roman law made him, for most scholars, at least in France, Erasmus' superior. But even more significant than his published work, in the popular mind at any rate, was his success in persuading Francis I to establish, during the 1530's, the professorships in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew which became the nucleus of the College Royal, later the College de France. Much was made in these years of this academy. Some fanciful authors found further reason for proclaiming Paris to be the new Athens; others rejoiced in the fact that grammarians were, in Erasmian style, taking the opportunity to trespass upon scriptures, the private preserve of theologians. To Protestants in particular the "Trilingue" seemed to constitute a rebuke to the "ignorant Sorbonne," as dement Marot had the temerity to tell the King— ignorant, indeed, to be the enemy of the noble three-tongued academy which you have erected... .11 To many Protestants this institutional embodiment of the new learning was a sign that the King might eventually be won over to their cause. Whether or not Hotman, like Calvin and Ramus, profited from the lectures of these regius professors, he was most probably attending the University of Paris by 1536. He certainly did not have far to go—only from the Rue de Bievre, across the Place Maubert, down the Rue St.-Jacques, then 11

Marot, "Epitre au Roy, du temps de son exile a Ferrare," lines 40-43: ". . . L'ignorant Sorbonne; Bien ignorante elle est d'estre enemie De la Trilingue et noble Academic Qu'as erigee . . . " 20

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T as now lined with bookshops and student meeting places, to the Rue Fromontel, where he was attached to the College du Plessis as a "martinet," which meant in effect that he lived at home. In this fourteenth-century establishment, which had a chapel, a court, and a garden as well as a hostel and two houses in the Rue St.-Jacques, Hotman learned the rudiments of Latin, Greek, and perhaps Hebrew. 12 This was not on the order of Bude's academy, of course. The humanist character of the curriculum may have been increased by the decision taken the previous year which placed teachers of grammar and rhetoric on an equal footing with the philosophers; but in most ways the course followed by Hotman was remarkably conservative. In three centuries and more, it seems, things had changed very little. There were the same jealous quarrels between faculties, especially between liberal arts and canon law, and grammarians were periodically warned not to invade the domain of the dialecticians. Despite Ramus' assault, Aristotle remained the principal text, and Ramus himself was living proof that the aim of instruction was less to inspire eloquence than to promote, as a statute of 1533 put it, "alacrity in argument." 13 Here it was, in any case, that Hotman began to acquire that mastery both of classical languages that would adorn all of his work and also of dialectic that he would put to more practical use in his various legal and literary conflicts. As always, things were more exciting, and perhaps more instructive, outside the classroom. In the sixteenth century the university was a world in itself and almost as cosmopolitan and as highly charged as Europe as a whole. There were between 16,000 and 20,000 students, a Venetian ambassador estimated in 1546, though a large proportion of these were no doubt unmatriculated hangers-on and trouble-makers. The university also harbored many Lutherans, 12

Johann Sturm to Hotman, May 1561 (Strasbourg AST, No. 163, f. 6f); cf. Ch. V, n. 11 below. 13 Bulaeus, VI, 247; cf. Crevier, Histoire de I'Universke de Paris (Paris, 1761), V, 286.

21

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T both real (especially in the German "nation") and imag­ ined, and a few Zwinglians as well. In 1533 the government had tried to bring some order into this chaos by laying down stricter rules for both masters and students. Degrees were to be granted only to those who faithfully attended lectures—and of course paid their fees—and vagabonds were to be reported. Preceptors were not to frequent taverns or theaters or even to play ball. Most important, "the impudent books of the heretics" were to be banned, and younger students were to be privately interrogated if such books were found in their possession.14 So from a very early age Hotman became familiar with, if not reconciled to, the practice of official censorship of unorthodox ideas. This particular edict hardly increased the King's popu­ larity among the young, though it did provide a cer­ tain amount of amusement. Later it was derived by Theo­ dore Beza as the "edict of beards," because it frowned not only upon the "new opinions" but also upon long whiskers (prolixa barba). (It is perhaps more than footnote in the history of fashion that, in contrast to the clean-shaven Eras­ mus and Bude, the younger generation, including Calvin, Beza, and Hotman himself, affected full beards; and it is interesting to note that Hotman's own brother Antoine later wrote a learned essay "in praise of beards.") In general, of course, there was nothing new in such generational dis­ agreement, especially in universities, where "ancients" and "moderns" of one sort or another had often fought. Nature herself, as Ramus wrote some twenty years later, decreed that "as age is miserly and sour, so youth is free and aban­ doned to their pleasure"; and the university, students as well as faculty, should not be condemned as revolutionary 15 (seditieuse et rebelle) on account of its liberties. But giv14

Bulaeus, VI, 247-49; Beza to Maclou Popon, 7 May 1542; cf. his satire of Pierre Lizet, who championed the edict, in Le Passavant [1553], trans. I. Liseux (Paris, 1875), p. 23; Antoine Hotman, Dialogus de barba (Op I 2 , 451). Alberi, I, 226. 15 Harangue touchant ce qu'on faict les deputez de VUniversite de Γ Paris envers le roy (Paris, 1557), ff. 8 , ι Γ . 22

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T en the doctrinal upheavals of the age, these liberties were precisely what the French government could not afford to tolerate during Hotman's generation. In a number of ways, then, the most ineradicable lines were being drawn between the young and the old, and the university in general was becoming a kind of miniature battleground which would later be extended to all of society. After the affair of the placards still more severe measures were taken, especially in the attempt to censor books, and there were several scandalous heresy trials. At one point, in the spring of 1535, the King himself came to the university to speak. "As subject to subject," he praised it as successor to Athens, but as king he thundered against the malignant growth of heresy within its walls. "I pray that you and all my subjects," he concluded, "be careful not only of yourselves but also of your family and especially of the children, and see that they are well instructed and indoctrinated [indoctriner] so that they do not fall into evil and forbidden opinions."16 It was not long before Francis also called upon all of his magistrates, including Hotman's father, to take an active part in rooting out this alien growth. And so from this time on the French Protestant became, more or less officially, a foreigner in his own land. What impression did these events have upon the young Hotman? With regard to certain fundamental though very general behaviorial patterns—distrust of and clandestine opposition to authority, sense of community with those subjected to it, and a youthful enthusiasm for the dynamic ideas binding this community together—these happenings were no doubt formative in many ways. Looking back over this period, or hearing about it from Calvin, or reading about it in the pages of Crespin or Sleidan, Hotman took the view that it represented the beginning of another Babylonian captivity, with Calvin playing the role of Moses (though a Moses, to be sure, who reached the promised land in advance of most of his people). But he was probi«Bulaeus, VI, 252-53.

23

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T ably too young to take much active part in the dangerous goings-on at the university, and to a large extent he must have been shielded by his solicitous and extremely orthodox father. In any case he remained at the university for only two years or less. Then at the age of fourteen he left home for the first time to begin the study of law as the first step toward his intended career. For the first time, too, he would not have his father to guide and to obstruct him. ORLEANS, FALL

1538

Like many other branches of learning, the study of civil law was in ferment at this time, and once again the source of the excitement may be traced to the humanist movement in general and to Guillaume Bude in particular. Bude's greatest achievement—and his most direct link with Hotman—was his work on civil law, which he had subjected to the same sort of historical criticism as Erasmus had applied to the Bible. As might be expected, the professional lawyers were hardly less distressed at the presumption of Bude's Annotations on the Pandects of 1508 than the theologians were at Erasmus' N e w Testament of 1516. Both books were iconoclastic and a threat to the academic establishment of that time. They were even more distressed when this literary method which we call "legal humanism" made its way into the law schools. The man who led this revolt of the amateurs against the professionals—the "plebeians" against the "patricians," as one hostile critic put it—was not Bude, however; it was Andrea Alciato, the young Milanese jurist whom Bude looked to as his successor and whom he may have been instrumental in bringing to France. Alciato came to the University of Bourges in 1527 (a bit less than forty years before Hotman would join the same faculty), and within a year his revolution was carried out. Here is an academic legend to set beside that of Bude as the man who singlehandedly brought philology to France. One day in 1528 24

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

Alciato's students, knowing his literary reputation, begged him to exhibit his scholarly treasures, which they believed would be more interesting, and certainly less laborious, than the normal fare of law students. Alciato was persuaded, and so he changed to the more elegant humanist style of lecturing.17 At once he came to enjoy a kind of academic succes de scandale. Among the students he attracted were not only Calvin and Francois Connan but also, if only for a single lecture, the King himself. This is the story, as told by Alciato, of the birth of the so-called "French method of teaching law." It was only natural that many young men would link this "reformed jurisprudence" with the "reformed religion"; both harked back to the standards of antiquity in order to purify a society corrupted by centuries of ignorance and materialism. But Alciato's success in France was short lived. He wearied of hearing the French sing Bude's praises, twitted him for discussing civil law without having a doctor's degree (there were limits to amateurism), and even became involved with him in a petty dispute over plagiarism (having partly to do with the study of ancient monies; later Hotman would in a sense "plagiarize" from both).18 He also seemed to find a certain difficulty in collecting his salary. Worst of all, Alciato was a foreigner, and it was largely for this reason that he provoked opposition among some of his students, especially Calvin and Connan. At last, pleading a call from the Duke of Milan, he returned to Italy. But if he left no immediate disciples in France, he had established a new tradition, an "historical school of law." Futile as they " Alciato, Paradoxa juris civilis, "proeemium," in Opera omnia (Frankfurt, 1617), IV, 1. Cf. the accounts of Le Douaren's students in Valentinus Foster, De Historia juris civilis romani (Basel, 1565), III, the first to link Hotman (as well as Baudouin and Dumoulin) with the tradition of Alciato; and Nicolas Cisner, "De Iurisprudentiae dignitate et D. Francisci Duareni V. CI. operibus epistola," Opuscula (Frankfurt, 1611), pp. 536-45. ^De Re numaria, pp. 20, 51, 265, passim, though he was not above criticizing them.

25

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T may seem to us, such questions of intellectual paternity were vital in the sixteenth century, and despite national pride Frenchmen had few doubts in this case. If Bude had laid this particular egg—to recall that inelegant metaphor which Bucer had applied to Erasmus and Luther—Alciato was the one who hatched it. Of Alciato's brood, the Alciatei, Hotman was eventually to be counted one of the most prominent members. Yet again it must be admitted that his formal training was fundamentally conservative. The University of Orleans provided the unofficial law faculty for the University of Paris, where the teaching of civil law had for over two centuries been prohibited as detrimental both to the faculty of canon law and to the political dignity of the King. The law school of Orleans, whose monopoly had been renewed just two years before, was still probably the most distinguished in France, rivaled only by Toulouse and, increasingly, by Bourges.19 Its major attraction was Pierre de I'Estoile, who had been first professor and regent and who had died a year before Hotman arrived. He had been a friend neither of the reformed religion nor of the reformed jurisprudence, and in fact he had become a professional enemy of Alciato during his stay in France. Even more than Toulouse, the University of Orleans was known as a stronghold of the old-fashioned scholastic jurisprudence associated with Bartolus, Baldus, and their tribe. Like Bude a halfcentury earlier, Theodore Beza, who received his law degree a year before Hotman (in 1539), was repelled by the "Bartolo-Baldism" of the school and, following the classic example of Petrarch, turned from the tedium of law to the delights of literature. 20 Hotman was either too young or too unimaginative to indulge himself in this way, and he evidently took his legal studies very seriously, as indeed the schedule demanded. 19

J.-E. Bimbenet, Histoire de VUniversite des lots (Orleans, 1853), p. 140. 20 Beza to Popon, 7 Dec. 1539. 26

dOrleans

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

There were "ordinary," or required lectures from eight o'clock (seven in the summer) until eleven in the morning, and then "extraordinary" lectures from two until five in the afternoon. The new-fangled ideas of Alciato would never be entirely welcome here, but classroom discipline was to some extent relaxed by an edict of 1538, so that students could ask questions of their professors and perhaps even get answers. But the required reading had not changed at all: Justinian's Institutes (the sixth-century textbook first assembled for Byzantine law students), selected titles from the Digest (the great anthology of classical jurisprudence) and the Code (the principal collection of imperial legislation), as well as the fourteenth-century Gloss of Accursius and the interpretations of more recent commentators, not to speak of countless controversies about these. No wonder students had begun to favor the humanist approach, which was more economical as well as more elegant. But Hotman took the old road, and he must have worked extremely hard to obtain his license in two years. As hard as his younger friend Henri de Mesmes? It seems likely; in any case the regimens must have been similar, and Des Mesmes offers a fascinating (and unique) picture of student life at the law school of the University of Toulouse not long afterwards.21 The boys were awakened at four in the morning and an hour later, having said prayers, were already on their way to classes—"our heavy books under our arms," he recalled, "our inkpots and candles in hand." Ordinary lectures lasted without break until ten o'clock, and then students were expected to review their lessons and to do reading in certain classical authors. At one in the afternoon, after a hasty lunch, they worked again until five, when they returned to their rooms, again to review and, even during dinner, to continue reading. Vespers marked the end of the day's labors. Entertainment consisted of a little music and walking in the evening, or occasionally, at 21

Henri de Mesmes, Memoires inedhes, ed. E. Fremy (Paris, n.d.),

p. 139.

27

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

least for well-born young men, supper with a friendly professor. The last months of the term were given to disputes and to the expensive festivities accompanying the granting of degrees. Like Hotman, Des Mesmes was only about fourteen years old when he suffered this ordeal. But there was more to student life in these years, certainly in Orleans. As in Paris, Hotman breathed the heady atmosphere produced by heresy, which had made its appearance at least a decade before. Indeed, Orleans may have been the scene of Calvin's own conversion. By the time Hotman arrived at the university, student disorder was apparently reaching a crescendo, and the Parlement of Paris took it upon itself to forbid student gatherings and to reorganize the major student institutions, the nations, by reducing them from ten to four.22 It was hopeless, of course. The University of Orleans could dissuade young men from following the law but hardly from finding their calling. Among Hotman's own contemporaries (though it is unlikely that he met them until later) was not only Beza, the future head of the Genevan church, but Anne du Bourg, the future martyr whose execution helped to set off the religious wars. These were exciting times, and once again we should like to know much more about Hotman's activities and especially his reactions to the "new opinions." But all that can be said for sure is that in 1540, just a year after Beza, Hotman paid the customary fee of 100 sous tournois and returned home, license in hand and who knows what doubts and ambitions in mind. So ended the formal phase of Hotman's education. PARIS, AUGUST 1540

It was another hot summer, especially for Protestants. The war with the Emperor had cooled off, and in January Charles V had even paid a visit to the King here; but for the 22

28

Bimbenet, Histoire de I'Universite, p. 237.

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

"Lutherans," by now surely including some of Hotman's acquaintances, this meant still more intense persecution. At the university another heresy case was in progress, and in June the King had issued an edict bidding all royal officials, on pain of losing their charges, to pursue "the spreaders of this infection" without mercy.23 Hotman's father, of course, was one of those affected by this command. In November particularly ferocious action was taken against one conspicuous center of heresy in the south: 27 inhabitants of Merindole were to be executed and the town itself razed as perpetual warning.24 In such overheated times Hotman returned home, ready to seek a place in the world of letters and careers. He did not have the good fortune to meet Bude, who died this month, just the day before Hotman's sixteenth birthday, in fact. But it did not take him long—it never would take him long—to make eminent and useful contacts. It was precisely at this point that he met two men whose lives would, in a most decisive way, intertwine and interact with his for the next twenty years and more. Charles Dumoulin, the first and most distinguished of Hotman's friends, comes into focus more clearly than Hotman himself at this time.25 Already forty years old, Dumoulin was still young, not to say adolescent, in spirit. Reportedly small and ugly, he was also, to judge from a contemporary engraving, impressive looking in a rather frenetic way. Eyes piercing, almost fierce, beard bristling, and hair, under his doctor's bonnet, standing out like a large, ill-kept hedge: the picture, one might imagine, of the perpetual enthusiast. About his arrogance, too, there something youthful. "I who yield to no man," he is said to 23

Edict of Fontainebleau, 1 June 1540 (Isambert, XII, 818). Crespin, I, 381; Sleidan, De Statu religionis, p. 470. 25 Dumoulin recalled the meeting with Hotman and Baudouin in a letter to Amerbach, 1 Dec. 1555 (Basel UB, GJI.21, f. 119'), published by Dareste in Revue de legislation et de jurisprudence, III (1853)- 143-44· 24

29

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T have boasted, "and who can be taught by no man," and this might be taken as his life's motto. Like Hotman, Dumoulin came from a Parisian famille de robe and attended the universities of Paris and Orleans, where he studied with Jean Pyrrhus d'Angleberme and the great L'Estoile and took his degree utriusque, in canon as well as civil law, two years before Hotman was born. Despite long years of practice in the Chatelet and in the Parlement, scholarship was his true calling. A story is told about his first encounter with Christofle de Thou, a colleague of Pierre Hotman and future first president of the Parlement, who happened to rebuke Dumoulin in public. "Today," someone told De Thou, "you have offended a man more learned than you will ever be." 26 In later times De Thou may have appreciated this remark, for in his famous campaign to reform the customary law of France he made extensive use of Dumoulin's legal learning and would remain one of Dumoulin's very few friends during his long years of misfortune. The legal profession in Paris was something of a social set as well as a closed corporation, and Hotman may very well have met Dumoulin through his father. He must have been attracted, too, by Dumoulin's recent scholarly success. It was just the year before that Dumoulin had finally published his first book, a highly acclaimed and (as far as such works can be) highly original study of the feudal law of Paris. This "treatise on fiefs," or as one modern reader called it, "treatise against fiefs," was the first step in Dumoulin's program to reform and to unify, in effect to codify, all the French customs. Soon Dumoulin was to launch a parallel attack on canon law and the ecclesiastical privileges which it embodied, beginning with a study of usury and moving on to a critique of the whole canonist tradition. 26

Papire Masson, Caroli Molinaei vita, in Elogiorum pars secunda (Paris, 1656), p. 237. In general, Julien Brodeau, La Vie de Maistre Charles Du Molin (Paris, 1654), and Haag.

30

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T Taken together, these works constituted a vast Gallican design for a centralized and self-sufficient monarchy which would dominate the ecclesiastical as well as the feudal establishment and which would draw its public as well as its private law from its own national traditions. "The French are one people," he declared in 1546, "and therefore should have one law." 27 Here were two parts (Dumoulin would soon add a third) of the already-traditional Gallican formula, un roi, une loi, une foi. It would be hard to exaggerate the influence of Dumoulin's royalist views upon Hotman's thought, especially in the interpretation of feudal and canon law and in the law of usury. Still more striking is the resemblance between Dumoulin's scheme of legal reform and that formulated by Hotman two decades later, indeed just a year after Dumoulin's death in 1567. But perhaps most fundamental of all, though harder to demonstrate, is the debt owed by Hotman in the field of constitutional history. These are a few of the areas in which Hotman would follow trails blazed by this older scholar and propagandist. When Hotman was visiting Dumoulin's house in 1540, he met another jurist who was to have an even greater, though somewhat less positive, impact upon his life. This was Francois Baudouin, twenty years old and acting at this time as Dumoulin's secretary. 28 Baudouin was not Parisian or even French—"semi-Germanic" is what Dumoulin called him. Born in Arras, he had studied at Louvain, which also had a "trilingual college," and was the product of an Eras27

"Oratio de concordia et unione consuetudinum Franciae," in Tractatus commerciorum et usuarum (Paris, 1546; privilege dated 22 Feb. 1543); Prima pars commentariorum in consuetudines parisienses (Paris, 1539), which is highly critical of Bude as well as Alciato (f. Hi). 28 Again the first biography is the Elogium of Masson, who was not only a protege of the Cardinal of Lorraine and a disciple of Baudouin (and his successor at the University of Angers) but one of Hotman's most vicious critics. See below, pp. 253-59.

31

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T mian rather than a Gallican tradition. By fortune as well as by background he was much more rootless than either Dumoulin or Hotman. More than Dumoulin and even than Hotman, Baudouin was captivated by humanist philology and was already applying its techniques to a study of Justinian's agricultural legislation, in which he referred to Alciato (though not Bude). He dabbled also in feudal law, perhaps under Dumoulin's encouragement, and produced a commentary on the custom of his native Artois. But civil law remained his specialty. In 1545 he published a short sketch of the history of Roman law and legal science down to his own day, showing clearly not only the direction of his own intellectual interests but the particular school he hoped to join—the new jurisprudence which was beginning to be cultivated by the Alciatei at the University of Bourges, especially by Eguinaire Baron and Francois le Douaren. 29 T o Baudouin's work, too, Hotman's debt was to be considerable, though he would never admit it. But these three men were drawn together by ties stronger than scholarly and professional interests. They were members of an uncommonly disaffected generation, sharing the same desire for a purified religion and the same fatal tendency to political activisim. They seemed to epitomize, from an orthodox point of view, the contemporary proverb, "Good jurist, bad Christian" (reversing the intent of Luther's "Juristen, bose Christen"). They were all headed, in short, toward deep involvement in the French Protestant movement. Not, to be sure, that they were following the same road. They did not even keep pace, though they caught sight of one another from time to time as their paths crossed and recrossed; nor did they choose the same companions on their 29 Prolegomena sive praefata de jure civili, published with Annotations in libros IV institutionum Justiniani (Paris, 1545); cf. Hotman's work of 1560. Baudouin already expressed his admiration for Alciato in his first work, Justiniani . . . de re rustica (Louvain, 1542), f. Pii'.

32

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T individual pilgrimages. But this is only in the light of later deviations and collisions. In the 1540's the "so-called re­ formed religion," as its enemies always called it, sheltered many kinds of protest, many divergent doctrines and tem­ peraments, and had not yet been chastened by the disillusionments brought by contact with power and finally with civil war. It was only then that contradictions became obvi­ ous and that defections and betrayals occurred. Here we are trying to follow the uncompromising course set by Hotman, but it will be useful, as a way of keeping a broad per­ spective on the labyrinth of sixteenth-century ecclesiastical politics, to glance occasionally at his comrades in arms. Al­ though, unlike him, they strayed from the straight and nar­ row, they do illustrate alternatives which have their own historical significance and which provide as well an essen­ tial context for an understanding of Hotman's experiences.

PARIS, 2 MAY 1543

On this date, it seems, the eighteen-year-old Hotman be­ came an author, having just signed the introduction to his first publication, a brief (and until now completely over­ looked) "Table of crimes and punishments," which he sub­ jected to a most ingenious diagrammatic analysis.30 The way in which he distributed legal topics from the most gen­ eral to the most particular resembles nothing so much as the celebrated bifurcating "method" of his later friend Petrus Ramus—though Hotman's "Table" antedated Ramus' first significant publication by four months. Otherwise the work is quite conventional. It is amusing, in fact, and not a little ironic to see Hotman, the future scourge of Roman law, rec­ ommending here that it be "imitated," and to see the future rebel showing such sober-minded public concern for such problems as conspiracy and sedition—activities which in later years he would see with very different eyes. 30

Tabulae de criminibus, f. Γ. 33

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T Hotman was apparently involved in at least one other publishing project during the year, and this, too, had somewhat symbolic overtones. The work was his Latin rendering of the pseudo-Homeric Battle of the Frogs and the Mice, a mock-epic about a conflict between two rival species.81 Prince Crumb-nibbler, son of King Bread-muncher, boasted to a frog of his royal lineage and claimed the privilege of riding upon his back. The frog caused the silly mouse to drown, however, and so erupted the little war. Eventually, with the help of foreigners (the crabs), the frogs defeated the arrogant mice. As a caricature this seems to fit the coming wars of religion in France better than the Trojan model: the arrogant Guises with their regal claims persecuting the Protestant party (the death of their leader, the Duke, serving as a spur to continued fighting), and the persistent attempts of the latter to find foreign aid—the main difference being the lack of any clear-cut victory by the "frogs." It must be added that Hotman, whose sense of humor is all but undetectable, would never draw such a fanciful parallel. That would take the perspective of a Montaigne—or the open-mindedness of a Rabelais. In any case the conflict thus inadvertently prefigured by the young Hotman was already in the making. Unmistakable signs of this appeared in royal legislation, including one edict issued by Francis I in August 1542 equating heresy and sedition and another the next year directing his magistrates to pursue the heretics without mercy. 32 The last struck close to home since once again it applied to Hotman's father, promoted to Conseiller in the Parlement recently. There is no indication that Hotman was moving toward the new opinions; it is not for another four years, indeed, that he finally emerges as a historical figure, no longer a sheltered boy but a man with a mind very definitely his own. But we 31 My attribution of this translation of the Batrachomyomachia to Hotman ("Franciscus Villerius Continiacus") is conjectural; his to Homer is false; the author is now thought to be Pigres. 32 Isambert, XII, 785, 818.

34

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T can assume that the intervening years were filled with religious questioning and anxious feelings as well as with continued study. Dumoulin, on the other hand, had already taken the plunge. He had been building up to it for some time, no doubt, but in 1542 he formally aligned himself with the reformatores, by which he meant not only Calvin but also such German Protestants as Luther, Melanchthon, and especially Heinrich Bullinger.33 In other ways, too, it seems, Dumoulin was making a new man of himself. Throwing off his self-imposed celibacy, he took a wife and subsequently became involved in a bitter lawsuit with his brother in order to regain the family property which he had renounced. But joining an unpopular and youthful cause was undoubtedly the most important step in the rebuilding of his character. So it was that, despite the 2 3-year age difference, he could remain Hotman's "contemporary." Perhaps the most conspicuous result of Dumoulin's conversion was his growing fondness for legal and political polemic, especially against the Roman church, its institutions, policies, and agents. Like his topics of discussion, his vocabulary, too, became livelier. He now wanted his learning to enflame as well as to instruct, though he was not quite prepared for the consequences. His major difficulty was his assumption that royalism and reform went hand in hand. There did seem to be some evidence for a relaxing of royal policy in certain acts of Henry II, such as granting amnesty to Merindole (which Dumoulin personally heard pronounced in the Parlement) and posing as "Protector of German liberties," that is, of the German Protestant princes, among whom Dumoulin counted one of his clients, Landgrave Philip of Hesse.34 But most signs pointed in the oppo33

According to Brodeau, Charles Du Molin, p. 49; on the lawsuit, lnventaire des registres des insinuations du Chatelet de Paris, ed. E. Campardon and A. Tuetey (Paris, 1906), p. 399. 34 La Premiere partie du Traicte de I'origine, progrez, et excellence du royaume et monarchic des francois in Opera omnia (Paris, 1681),

35

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

site direction, and it is hard to see how Dumoulin could have deceived himself for so long about the intentions of the crown. Nevertheless, throughout a long series of disappointments and outright disasters he clung to his oldfashioned Gallican convictions, which were evidently more deeply rooted than his religious views. The tension between the two was difficult to bear, but as long as he could manage it, he provided Hotman with a splendid example of rabid anti-Romanism and religious idealism—of an arsenal of learning placed in the service of conviction. Baudouin's conversion was more sensational, though hardly more solid. Back home in Arras, he had adopted the Genevan faith by 1544 and in the fall of that year, in the company of his friend and classmate Jean Crespin, was attending the sermons of Pierre Brully, Calvin's successor in the church of Strasbourg. Unfortunately, Charles V was no more tolerant of new ideas in his dominions than Francis I; and Brully, later to figure in Crespin's martyrology, was burned the following February. Baudouin and Crespin were luckier. Accused of heresy, they fell under the "perpetual ban" of the Emperor two days before Brully's death, but they were not apprehended.35 His property confiscated, Baudouin paid a last visit to his mother and fled to Paris. Soon he was in correspondence with Calvin, and in the fall he made his first pilgrimage to the Protestant havens of Strasbourg and Geneva. By this time such traffic was already fairly heavy. Baudouin obviously enjoyed the camaraderie and the underground games of an outlawed cult. Writing to a "M. Charles d'Espeville" (one of Calvin's aliases), who lived in Milan, Venice, or "Megalopolis," Baudouin adopted the crypto-classical code of the reformers, discussing for inII, 1044; his briefs for Philip of Hesse against Charles V are in Consilia quatuor (Paris, 1552). 35 The text of the ban is in Charles Paillard, he Proces de Pierre Brully (Paris, 1878), p. 171. 36

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

stance the actions of "Antiochus" (Charles V) and "Epiphanes" (Francis I) and the progress of "Neptune" (the Council of Trent). 36 To indicate the solidity of his faith, Baudouin began to sign himself "Peter the Rock" (Petrus Rochius)—an inelegant and inappropriate pseudonym that, like his designation of Calvin as his adopted "father," would haunt him in later years. In general he sent greetings from Crespin, newly married, in Picardy, and from Johann Sturm and Martin Bucer in Strasbourg; he described the gains and losses of the faith in France; and he reported on the latest books issuing from the press of the Estiennes and on the progress of his own reading. In the summer of 1547 Calvin's "integrus Rochius" was back in Geneva, serving as secretary in Calvin's house and performing various clerical and scholarly tasks, such as the translation of an apology composed for the newly converted M. de Falais. Baudouin may not have been an ideal secretary—later, after his defection, he was accused of stealing and falsifying some of Calvin's correspondence—but no one complained at the time.37 On the contrary, he seemed to be one of Calvin's most promising disciples. It was assumed, of course, that he would stay in Geneva, or at least take a post of Calvin's choosing. But Baudouin had other problems and other plans. In the first place he had a career to worry about, and living in Calvin's shadow, or working for the printers of Lyon, which he did later that year, was not the best way to accomplish what he had in mind. What he wanted in particular was an academic post, and he had already taken steps to obtain it by dedicating his most recent book to Francois le Douaren.38 38 Calvin, CR, esp. letters of 1545? (4143), 20 July 1545 (663), 1 Aug. 1545 (671), 5 Oct. 1545 (709), 28 Nov. 1546 (857), and to M. de Palais, 13 Aug. 1547 (936). 37 See below p. 143. 38 Breves comenterii in praecipuas Justiniani Imp. novellas (Lyon, 1547), "F. B. Francisco Duareno juriscons.," 1 Jan. 1547; to Calvin, 25 Mar. 1548 (CR, 1002).

37

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T In the spring of 1548 he told Calvin that he had received and turned down a teaching position at the University of Grenoble, but he did not mention his negotiations with the University of Bourges, on which he had obviously set his sights. And there indeed, in the fall of that year, he came, soon settling down not only to work in his chosen field but to marriage and a family. During his six-year residence there he emerged as one of the brightest and boldest of the new generation of legal humanists. His studies of the early Roman republic, including the first serious attempt to reconstruct the laws of the Twelve Tables, established his priority even over his contemporary Jacques Cujas, who would eventually become the acknowledged dean of legal humanists (Hotman and certain of his partisans to the contrary notwithstanding). At the same time, in violation of one of Calvin's strictest rules, that against "nicodemitism," Baudouin reverted to Roman religious observances. That he did so for purposes of survival as well as status—a group of heretics was burned in Bourges the very fall he arrived—was no excuse.39 So he came under suspicion of betraying not only the expectations of Calvin but also the cause of religious reform. In Baudouin, then, as in Dumoulin, Hotman could find both something to emulate, professional success, and something to avoid, confessional inconstancy. Neither lesson was lost on him. PARIS, 16 A U G U S T

1546

A week short of his twenty-second birthday, Hotman had launched into his teaching career and also, apparently, into his lifelong competition with Baudouin. At seven o'clock in the morning, as one of his students later reported, he gave a lecture in the faculty of canon law on the title "de nova39

38

Jehan Glaumeau, Journal (Bourges, 1867), p. 36.

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

tionibus" from the Institutes, while at two in the afternoon, "in a great auditorium," Baudouin spoke on the title "de publicis."40 To give extraordinary lectures for the benefit of canonists must have been a considerable honor for these two young men, and yet it did little to seal their friendship. Already they had begun feuding. The trouble began with that favorite humanist issue, plagiarism, and it was Hotman who raised it. The year before, it seems, he had shown Baudouin some of his private notes on the Institutes, and Baudouin had made unauthorized use of this material in his recently published annotations on the Institutes. It was this circumstance, Hotman wrote in 1547, that led him, with the urging of friends, to publish his first major work, a commentary on the legal problem of blood relationship and succession (de gradibus cognationis et affinhatis), a subject, incidentally, that would occupy him more urgently in later years when the kingship itself was at stake. The following year, in a work on legal actions, he made a similar remark about his sometime friend "Petrus Rochius."41 For his part Baudouin, reporting directly to Calvin, complained about those—he did not name Hotman but the reference is unmistakable—who confused the natural and equitable provisions of Roman law with the corrupt opinions of the canonists, which indeed, along with certain precedents of the Parlement of Paris, Hotman had cited. It is hard to judge the seriousness of this quarrel, or even its concrete basis, but greater conflicts than that which eventually broke out between these two young jurists have had smaller beginnings. In any case 40

Pasquier, to Antoine Loisel, 1 Oct. 1605 (II, 501). De Gradibus cognationis, ded. to Gabriel Mariliac (1546), a moderate Catholic once suspected of Lutheran leanings, later Bishop of Vienne, and De Actionibus, ded. to Claudius of Maura, 1 Aug. 1548; cf. Baudouin to Calvin, 28 Nov. 1546 (CR, 857). Note that the letters dedicatory published in Op III have been substantially altered (probably by Jean Hotman) and must always be checked against the original. 41

39

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

it is significant that Hotman opened his literary career on a polemical note. Meanwhile, lagging somewhat behind Baudouin and Dumoulin, Hotman was being drawn irresistibly to the new evangelical religion in these unpredictable years when the temptations as well as the risks were mounting so rapidly. As usual, government policy was more effective in publicizing than in curbing these opinions. The increase of censorship merely stimulated the business of foreign printers, or at least the use of false imprints; the printing of the 1542 edition of Calvin's Strasbourg liturgy "at Rome, with the permission of the Pope," is an extreme but not unique example. The establishment in that same year of the old device of an Index of forbidden books merely added to the notoriety of books like Calvin's Institution, which was among the first to gain such recognition and which, in the absence of the author himself, was publicly burned in 1544. Still more sensational was the case of the great scholarprinter Etienne Dolet, who was not even in the Protestant camp, but whose execution in the Place Maubert in 1546 advertised their cause. The results of such acts was not at all to discourage potential proselytes; rather it was to turn their eyes away from France itself. For many young Frenchmen the Swiss voyage was already replacing the Italian voyage as the most fashionable way of finishing off one's education. Some, like Baudouin, had already made the trip and brought back inspiring stories of Calvin and his friends. It is not at all unlikely that he helped to stir up Hotman's interest at this time, although others in the same social circle, including Hotman's future publisher Robert Estienne and some of Bude's sons, were toying with the idea of going into a glorious exile. Their decision was only hastened by the new train of persecutions fired by Henry II upon his succession in March 1547 and given institutional sanction by the notorious Chambre Ardente. The future looked black. In June 40

M A K I N G OF A P R O T E S T A N T

"Charles d'Espeville" issued one of his most passionate appeals "to the faithful in France," urging them not to lose heart.42 It must have been at just about this time that Hotman took his first step down the treacherous road to Geneva. 42

"Calvin aux fideles de France," 24 July 1547 (CR, 931).

41

III.

I N T H E S H A D O W OF C A L V I N

GENEVA-LAUSANNE,

1548-1555

"Since the day I found true religion I have loved no one, not even my father, more than you." Hotman to Calvin, 1548

PARIS, 3 M A Y

1548

A T THE seance of the special court of the Parlement popularly called the Chambre Ardente, the "burning chamber," a certain Pierre Bricquet of Moulins, charged with "blasphemies and Lutheran errors," was brought from the prison of the Palais to hear his sentence. He was condemned to make "honorable amends" by attending High Mass in his church, bareheaded and barefoot, holding a lighted candle weighing a pound. Then he was to listen to a harangue against "heresy and the Lutheran sect" and to watch his books being burnt. Finally, he was to be whipped through the streets of Moulins for three successive days and banished forever, on penalty of death, from the seneschausee of Bourbonnais. Actually, Bricquet was relatively lucky; in the next few months, especially under the zealous presidency of Pierre Lizet, many more severe sentences would be carried out, including the most refined tortures and an occasional execution by fire.1 On this particular day at least one of the judges, Pierre Hotman, was listening with particular care, for he had been chosen to act as recorder. In general he seems to have performed his duties most conscientiously, and from March to September he did not miss a single session. 1 Nathaniel Weiss, La Chambre ardente (Paris, 1899), p. 20, et passim, for these documents.

42

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

Meanwhile, whether or not Pierre suspected anything, his eldest son was already committed to these very errors and heresies—that they were not strictly "Lutheran" was beside the point paternally as well as legally. The elder Hotman's activities most likely contributed to Francois' final decision to leave home, for it was taken at just this time, in the spring of 1548, though it is clear that he had been thinking about it for months. Unlike Beza, who was also undergoing a crisis in his relations with his father at this time, Hotman never revealed the magic day of his conversion, but it may have come as early as August 1547, when he made his first trip to Switzerland. In any case it was to Pierre Viret, the great preacher and first minister of Lausanne, that Hotman first confessed his "calling." Soon Calvin heard about it, and so probably did Baudouin, who was then serving as Calvin's secretary.2 Whether or not he paid a visit to Geneva, within three months Hotman was in correspondence with "M. d'Espeville." Like Baudouin he address his messages "to Milan," or "to the City of God" (Hierapolis; Villedieu), or "wherever he may be found." In Hotman's first extant letter (23 November 1547), when he was still in Lausanne and recovering from a six-day fever, we find him trying to correct a misunderstanding that had arisen in an earlier communication (arising no doubt from his handwriting, and on this score a modern student may sympathize with Calvin). The word he had used (in connection with faith, perhaps?) was not "sky," he explained, but "fortress," not aerem but arcem. But the revealing statement is his assurance to Calvin of the sincerity of his convictions and the intensity of his "filial love." That winter Hotman was back in Paris, and he must have wrestled with his conscience for months. Then sometime during the spring, while his father was entering into his 2 Letter to Calvin, Lausanne, 23 Nov. 1547 (CR, 968); Calvin to Viret, 21 Aug. 1547 (CR, 939).

43

IN T H E S H A D O W OF C A L V I N

new duties in the special tribunal of the Parlement, he finally crossed his Rubicon. In this way Hotman left the new Egypt and set out for the Promised Land. Although he was traveling in the opposite direction, the route he took was the same as that described by a German medical student four years before. The trip of "Beloved Son Felix" down the well-worn road from Lausanne to Lyon produced a wide range of reactions—from pleasure, because of visits to the inns along Lake Leman and to Calvin's house; to fear, because of the dangers of the forest at night; to horror, because of the bodies hanging from gibbets outside Lyon.3 Hotman's emotions were no doubt quite different. He was never one to pay much attention to the quality of food or wine, and anyway he had more important things on his mind. Not only was he looking forward to a reunion with his chosen spiritual "father," but he was forced to look back for signs of pursuit by his incensed natural father. Consciously or unconsciously, the pilgrimage recapitulated that of the reformed churches from the tutelage of the Pope toward God Himself, and Hotman's language suggests that he was quite aware of this. In April Hotman was in Lyon and Lausanne; he paid another call on Viret and perhaps one on Calvin as well. In Lyon his path once again crossed that of Baudouin, who had left Calvin's service and was now waiting to take up his position at the University of Bourges. Hotman supported himself, as Baudouin had done, by working for the printers, one of whom, Sebastian Gryphius, was about to publish his De Actionibus. Nor was he wholly without friends, among them Guillaume de Trie, who married into the Bude family and who was later to play a crucial (that is, an informer's) role in the Servetus affair, and the Sieur de Villemongis, who was to be a major participant in and a casualty of the s Beloved Son Felix, The Journal of Felix Flatter, a medical student in Montpellier in the Sixteenth Century, trans. S. Jennett (London, 1961), pp. 34-36.

44

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

conspiracy of Amboise twelve years later. But it was a difficult and depressing time, quite enough to turn a man's thoughts to the subject of subversion, its rewards and penalties. For whatever reason, he spent several weeks translating that classic of martyrdom, Plato's Apology of Socrates. The address of the book, "from Venice, 12 August 1548," was probably a ruse; it was dedicated to Trie and published by Gryphius in Lyon. Hotman was a man on the move, however, and nothing, except perhaps common sense, prevents us from assuming that he did, after all, make his Italian voyage.4 It is unlikely, but if so, it was his only visit, a short one at that, to this land of pedantry and popery, which he would eventually come to stigmatize as the Pandora's box of the modern world. For Hotman all roads now led to Geneva. Being a fugitive brought out the best and the worst in Hotman. If he displayed courage, he acquired also a kind of intolerance that was coming to be a distinguishing mark of Calvinist exiles. This was no doubt understandable. For Hotman there was no turning back. How could he feel sympathy for those who stayed behind? Bridges burned, he had no use for hesitancy; uprooted, he scorned other men's need for security; forced to make the ugliest of choices, that between his family and his faith, he scorned too their tendency to compromise. One of the most derogatory words in his (as in Calvin's) vocabulary was "nicodemite." Worse than the papists, he believed, were the uncommitted, which to Hotman meant the conciliators as well as the neutrals. On this subject, to judge from his later actions as well as from his youthful letters, he was truly more Calvinist than Calvin. Among such nicodemites Hotman did not, as yet anyway, include Dumoulin; but he did very specifically include his other old friend, with whom he was still in correspondence (unfortu*To Calvin, Lyon, 10 Oct. 1548 (CR, 1048); cf. Baduel to Calvin, 24 May 1551 (CR, 1495).

45

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN nately the letters have not survived). "Unlike Baudouin," he boasted to Calvin, "I do not respond coldly but audaciously and firmly, and I bear witness openly." 5 Behind Hotman's hostility, no doubt, lay not a little jealousy for a man who had preceded him in Calvin's affections and who, launched upon a lucrative career, was surpassing him in his chosen profession as well; but there was also pride and loyalty. Thus, in any case, grew the varicolored resentment which was to blossom so spectacularly eight years later— and to flourish in a number of forms over the next twenty. When making this deliberate and quite irrevocable break with family and country, Hotman obviously had more to lose and less to gain than Baudouin. N o one knew the extent of his sacrifice better than his new "father." "He abandoned the hope of a fine inheritance," Calvin declared, "in order to fight for Christ."6 At first, perhaps, Hotman was not especially worried; God, he was sure, would provide. "We have bread and water," he wrote from Lausanne in 1547, "and for such felicity we will fight Jupiter himself." But when the euphoria of conversion wore off, Hotman began to regret the loss of his "honor," and he never gave up the hope of recovering his patrimony. Hotman's choice had deeper implications, of course, than simply material loss and change of social status; and while evidence is lacking to analyze his problems as fully as those (say) of Luther or of Calvin, it is impossible to avoid concluding that it was bound up with a deep crisis—an "identity crisis," rooted in Hotman's relationship with his father and much intensified by the ideological pressures of that age. It was a kind of personal crisis which, to judge from the correspondence of such charismatic figures as Calvin with disciples, was by no means unique with Hotman; Beza, Baudouin, the Budes, and others went through similar ordeals. But few of his contemporaries illustrate as fully the 5

To Calvin, Lyon, 27 July and 17 June 1548 (CR, 1033, 1056). "Calvin to Bullinger, 25 Nov. 1549 (CR, 1324); cf. J. V. Gravina, Origines juris civilis (Lipsiae, 1708), p. 216.

46

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN emotional congruence of private and public experience and the repercussions of such a change of personal allegiance. Was this conscious? Did Hotman, the recently acclaimed author of a treatise on family relationships, see any moral or psychological significance in his rejection, or rather transmutation, of paternal authority? Probably not; Hotman was neither a very introspective nor a very philosophic man, least of all on the subject of his faith. Yet this violation of what according to civil law was the most sacred of bonds surely did its psychic damage. Did Hotman feel any conscious filial regrets? Again, probably not, though he did try to hide his Protestant publications from his family. What he did feel was resentment. "My father," as Hotman told Melanchthon after the elder Hotman's death, "ended his career by oppressing more than a thousand martyrs and, as long as I was with him, did not try to keep me from impiety. But God kept me for his church, and in this I hope to spend the rest of my life."7 Nevertheless, this break with his family was Hotman's first, and undoubtedly hardest, act of rebellion; and it may have done more than any other experience, historical or intellectual, to determine the pattern of his life.

LYON, 27 JULY

1548

Hotman was not ashamed to admit that his fealty to Calvin was filial as well as confessional. "God is my witness," he wrote, "that since the day I found true religion I have loved no one, not even my father, more than you. Nothing could be more important or fortunate in my life than to find a way of living near you. . . . If I had twenty crowns or more, I would willingly spend the winter with you, if you would permit it."8 He was still afraid of being found by his father's 7

To Melanchthon, 24 May 1556 (Paris, Dupuy, 797, f. 2izT, see Appendix III below). 8 T o Calvin, 27 July, 10 Oct. and (?) 1548 (CR, 1056, 1082, 4246). Important corrections of Dareste in Jacques Pannier, "Hotman en Suisse (1547-1590)," Zwingliana, VII (1939-43), 137-72; though not

47

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

friends, he added, and he obviously needed a more permanent refuge. What Hotman was doing, in effect, was applying for Baudouin's old job as Calvin's secretary. Besides assuring Calvin that he would be more loyal than Baudouin had been, Hotman appended to his letter a formal declaration of faith, and later, as further recommendation, he sent along a copy of his most recent book. Calvin was persuaded of his sincerity and finally took the broad hints Hotman had dropped. Around the end of October, then, Hotman moved to Geneva, staying in or very close to Calvin's house at 11 Rue des Chanoines, in front of the old church of St. Peter. For several months he made himself useful as a scribe and literary assistant. He took down not only letters and sermons but Calvin's treatise against judicial astrology, which he afterwards turned into Latin, adding a prefatory letter addressed to Laurent of Normandy.9 Viret and Guillaume Farel were pleased with Hotman's services, especially since Calvin was ill much of the winter. For Hotman himself the experience set the seal upon his new set of allegiances. By the spring he had been admitted on a first-name basis into the inner circle of Genevan reformers. To Hotman and others in his situation, Calvin was a father-figure in more than a symbolic sense. In order to assist such young disciples, Calvin had established in his colony not only a refuge but a kind of scholarship fund, a placement bureau, and even a matrimonial agency.10 There is no free of errors, it is much superior to Friedrich Kleyser, "Calvin und Franz Hotman," Geschichtliche Krafte und Entscheidungen, Festschrift . . . Otto Becker (Wiesbaden, 1954), pp. 47-64. See also, more generally, David Baird Smith in Scottish Historical Review, XIII (1915-16), 328-65. 9 "Vilierius Normandio," 22 Feb. 1549 (CR, 1152); cf. Farel to Calvin, 28 Jan. and 3 May, and Viret to Calvin, 14 Feb. 1549 (CR, ii33> " 8 5 . "42)· 10 Emile Doumergue, Jean Calvin, III (Lausanne, 1905), 542.

48

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

evidence that Hotman made use of the latter service, though before the year was out he had taken to wife a good Calvinist girl, Claude Aubelin, who with her father Guillaume, Sieur de la Riviere, formerly of Orleans, was an exile like himself and who may well have met him through Calvin or his friends. But it is clear that Hotman expected Calvin to find him a position by which he could support himself and make the best use of his talents. What he needed, to put it bluntly, was a benefice, and that, as Calvin knew, was something God would not provide. Although he lacked the resources and machinery of the papal curia, Calvin had devised his own means of making provisions and reservations for his own followers. Usually this simply meant sending the disciple to a reformed congregation in Switzerland, France, or even further afield. But since Hotman was a layman and unable to return to France, the range of choice was more restricted. There was really only one solution: he must go to the reformed school at Lausanne. Here Viret would certainly welcome him. When Hotman set out for Lausanne early in May 1549, he was accompanied by another of Calvin's promising proteges. Theodore Beza, his old schoolmate from the university of Orleans and for the next forty years his comrade in arms, had not taken to the law but had strayed into the pleasanter fields of poetry, though since his recent conversion he would just as soon forget this lapse. Except for his newly acquired theological ambitions, Beza's early career much resembled that of Hotman. He, too, had become disenchanted with his worldly life; he, too, had a considerable patrimony hanging in the balance; yet he, too, responded by rebelling. First he married secretly, then he left France altogether. His conversion had taken place about a year after Hotman's, following a serious illness. Immediately after his recovery he left for Geneva and arrived on 24 October 1548, within a few days of Hotman. Whether because he had more insight into his act, or because he had fewer 49

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN hopes of returning (in 1550 he was burned in effigy in Hotman's old neighborhood, the Place Maubert), he stopped to reflect upon his departure: Goodbye, France, goodbye: The place which first took shape Before my eyes, The place which first listened T o my cries.11 It was not long before Beza, too, took Calvin as his second "father." For a time he considered going into the printing business with Jean Crespin, another recent arrival; but under the urging of his beloved old mentor, Melchior Wolmar, whom he visited in Tubingen during the winter, he decided to follow Calvin's advice and take a position in the academy of Lausanne. His gift for leadership and his commitment to the Genevan church, substantially greater than Hotman's, insured his rapid advancement in the next few years and prepared the way eventually for his selection as Calvin's successor. Through it all he and Hotman remained bound by the closest ties of friendship, common experience, and ideology. Set upon imposing hills some sixty miles further from France along the northern shore of Lake Leman, Lausanne was larger, though less important commercially than Geneva, and hardly less influential as a Protestant center. This was due above all to its academy, which was the oldest xl

Foemata

(Geneva, 1569), p. 77: Adieu, France, adieu, Qui estes le lieu Qui premidrement Au monde me vistes, Et premier ouistes Mon gemissement. In general Paul Geisendorf, Theodore de Beze (Geneva, 1949), together with the notes in Beza, are indispensable. Cf. BSHPF, XXXVII (1888), 534.

50

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

reformed school in the French-speaking world, already twelve years old when Hotman and Beza arrived in 1549.12 The establishment of the academy, modeled to some extent upon the famous gymnasium founded in Strasbourg by Johann Sturm, dated back to the reform edicts which followed the seizure of Lausanne by Bern in 1535. It was still the "Germans" who ran the school, in fact, though the students as well as the faculty were mainly French and though Geneva regarded Lausanne as a kind of satellite. Like all the teachers, Hotman and Beza would have to sign the "disputation of Lausanne" of 1536, which was largely the work of Viret, but which had certain Lutheran as well as Zwinglian features. What is more, the Council of Bern controlled salaries and appointments and generally kept a watchful eye upon doctrine and discipline, especially now that the French were inclining more and more toward Calvin's view of the eucharist, while Bern came increasingly to favor Zwingli's. In itself this was not fatal; after all, Geneva normally got along well with Zurich. But beneath this ideological problem there was clearly a struggle for survival as well. At just about the time that Hotman was paying his first visit in 1547, Viret was coming under fire from the professor of liberal arts, Andre Zebedee, for his unseemly emphasis upon predestination. In May 1548 Viret had to defend his views before the Council of Bern, and though he seemed to be vindicated, his position was never again quite so secure.13 Zebedee's attacks continued, and an opposition party 12

Henri Vuilleumier, Histoire de Peglise reformee du pays de Vaud, I (Lausanne, 1927), 394-429, and "Notice historique et statistique sur l'Academie de Lausanne," Academie de Lausanne, Program des cours (Lausanne, 1878), pp. i8ff; also Jules Le Coultre, Maturin Cordier (Neuchatel, 1926), and considerably less useful, Andre Gindroz, Histoire de Vinstruction publique dans le pays de Vaud (Lausanne, 1853). 13 Viret to Calvin, 18 Apr. 1548 and 20 Feb. 1549 (CR, 683, 1149). Invaluable in general is Jean Barnaud, Pierre Viret, sa vie et son

51

IN T H E S H A D O W OF C A L V I N

arose which divided the students as well as the faculty. It was an old story: a pedantic squabble inflated into a deadly struggle for power. One young theology student and parti­ san of Zebedee named Louis Corbeil joined in the fray in a particularly vicious fashion. Bypassing the faculty author­ ities, he took his complaint directly to Bern. The upshot of this was a "visitation" of the academy by Johann Haller, who interrogated both students and faculty. In Feb­ ruary 1549, after Haller's report, the council forbade stu­ dents to "come running" to them with their troubles; yet at the same time they neglected to reprimand Corbeil and re­ fused even to discuss the matter of Zebedee, whose attacks were continuing. The following month Viret submitted a confession of faith to the council. He was very worried, and so was Calvin. It was at just this time that Calvin was trying to place two of his brightest prospects.14 Viret himself was much pleased with both Hotman and Beza, but his influence was clearly on the wane. "Viret is a good man," Haller admitted pri­ vately, "but stubborn, and he will not give an inch." In Sep­ tember, attempting to curb theological strife, the council suppressed the traditional weekly colloquies, a beloved in­ stitution and popular pastime among the Vaudois. For months Viret and the other professors appealed this deci­ sion. Memoranda flew back and forth, not only from Lau­ sanne and Bern but also from Geneva and Zurich. It was hopeless; Viret's pleas were full of words not arguments, said Haller, and the council's decision stood. In the summer two of Calvin's appointees joined the faculty, Jacques Mer­ lin as professor of Hebrew and Jean Quentin as professor of liberal arts, in succession to the unlamented (but still unoeuvre (ΐζΐι-ίζηι) (Saint-Amans, 1911). Cf. Geneva BPU, Tronchin, Vol. 6, ff. 36r-37T. 14 Calvin to Viret, 5 May, Viret to Calvin, 8 May, and Haller to Bullinger, 30 Nov. 1549 and 31 Aug. 1551 (CR, 1186, 1188, 1320, 1525)· 52

I N T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

silenced) Zebedee, who was discreetly given another position by the council at Yverdon, from which he continued his assaults upon Calvinists. On 13 October Hotman and Beza were elected by the faculty, and their names were submitted to the Council of Bern. Beza was approved as the new professor of Greek. To the consternation of the Calvinists, however, Hotman was rejected. "I congratulate Beza," wrote Farel, "but about Hotman I am stupefied." Although the excuse was made that Hotman was a jurist and so there was no place for him, Calvin was certain that the blow was aimed at himself. Through Haller, Viret confirmed this suspicion and went on to suggest that Zebedee and Corbeil had a hand in it as well. But Viret did not give up. He sent copies of Hotman's work to two Bernese councilors, while Hotman himself submitted a confession of faith and Calvin wrote letters in all directions, in particular to Haller and to Bullinger, both of whom eventually became close friends of Hotman. All this commotion at last had its effect. After a petition to the council drawn up by the rector Jean Ribit on 1 February, Hotman finally had his benefice.15 He had also a valuable lesson in academic politics and his first real taste of controversy. LAUSANNE, 16 M A R C H

1550

Absorbed in his new duties, Hotman apologized to Calvin that he had time only for a hasty note.18 Unlike Beza he had 15

Bern SB, Hist. Helv., Ill, 130, #68, in Beza's own hand, published by Henri Meylan and Louis Junod, L'Academie de Lausanne (Lausanne, 1947), No. 4; Beza's election (8 Nov. 1549) in Beza, 196. Among the other important transactions: "Ministri Lausannensis classis as Bernenses," 13 Oct. 1549; Viret to Calvin, 18 Nov., 30 Nov., and 11 Dec. 1549, and 12 Feb. 1550; Farel to Calvin, 25 Nov. 1549; Calvin to Haller, 26 Nov. 1549; and Viret to Haller, 13 May 1550 (CR, 1286, 1307, 1321, 1327, 1343, 1308, 1311, 1354). 16 CR, 1356. Further corrections of Dareste in Vuilleumier, "Le Sejour de Hotman a Lausanne 1549-1555," Bulletin du bibliophile (1901), pp. 125-29. Salary payments to Hotman {trots escutz solez

S3

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN not been given one of the regular professorships but was made regent of the "first class," that is, the last of the seven age groups. His stipend consisted of three gold crowns and a measure (cuppa) of grain each month, making it just over 170 florins a week. (The first professor, Matthieu Cordier, got closer to 300 florins and Calvin himself 500, not including what amounted to an expense account from the Genevan council.) In addition Hotman probably received fees from student pensioners, who were normally housed with married faculty. Of these some were domestici or convictores, who ate at table, received wood, candles, and occasionally wine, and paid twenty crowns; others received room and board but ate by themselves and paid twelve crowns; the rest had only a room and ate what their families sent them. In general Hotman's monthly salary was not munificent but satisfactory, in Viret's opinion, certainly for a young couple whose first son, Jean, was not born until 1552. A schoolmaster's day was at least as long as the students'. Everyone was awake by 5 A.M. or earlier.17 As at Paris the students dressed themselves in robes (togae). After prayers in one room of the pension, they were given breakfast, consisting perhaps of bread and figs, in their quarters. At six o'clock they were called by a bell to a common room; they worked in unheated classrooms until lunch-time, which was ten o'clock; then classes again from 11:00 to 1:30, a snack of cheese or fruit outdoors or perhaps under a tree in the courtyard; and classes once more from three to five in the afternoon. At six o'clock came the main meal, consisting of a thick soup, meat or fish, and mixed vegetables. Afterwards the students were on their own (placidum studiorum). Sometimes they worked in their free time, especially helping in the kitchen. Sometimes they amused themselves by wading in the lake or going to town to the market, the taifrom Hans Freissin of Bern in 1552, for April, May, and June) are recorded in Geneva MHR, Ah. 1. 17 Le Coultre, Maturin Cordier, pp. i86ff.

54

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

lor, or the barber, or even to visit a fair or to go home, though only with permission of their master. Hotman was naturally involved in the moral instruction of his students, and so to some extent was his wife, though of course she was exempt from the Latin requirement and was concerned mainly with kitchen matters. To judge from the tone of Hotman's writings (not to speak of the rebellion later of one of his sons), he must have been a rather rigid disciplinarian. Yet neither the Calvinist religious training of this school, nor the familial orientation, nor the youth of the students (most no more than thirteen or fourteen years of age) prevented them from the usual escapades. The worst of the lot, at least to the French professors, were the German students, and complaints from the faculty were frequent.18 Not only did students occasionally break into the wine stores, but there were several cases of fighting with knives, although this was expressly forbidden by the statutes of 1547. What made matters worse was the growing division over theology and no doubt the presence of religious refugees. All of this must have reminded Hotman of his own turbulent student days. As Hotman's religious profession was limited by the disputation of Lausanne, so his teaching was governed by the statutes of the academy set down three years earlier. In general, students were to receive six hours of instruction each day from four principal professors, whose subjects were theology, taught at this time by Ribit; Greek, taught by Beza; Hebrew, taught by Merlin; and arts, which included philosophy as well as rhetoric, taught by Quentin. Each of the three two-hour classes opened with a prayer, and careful attendance was taken. Wednesdays and Saturday afternoons were given over to disputations arranged respectively by the professors of theology and of arts. There were examinations both for entrance and, in the fall and spring, for promotion. The graduation ceremonies, which 18

Beza to the ministers of Zurich, 25 Apr. 1551 (Beza, 18).

55

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN took place on ι November and on ι May, were usually elab­ orate and included a public reading of the names of passing students. 19 In the spring of this particular year, 1550, Cal­ vin himself was to attend. After graduation the best stu­ dents were usually "sent forth" (envoyes plus loin; wider schikt), perhaps to Wittenberg or to Strasbourg, or after the break with the Lutherans, to Basel, Zurich, or Marburg. In that most fundamental of Protestant goals, the indoc­ trination of youth, the role of the academy was crucial; but however single-minded the purpose of its instruction, the method was eclectic, a mixture of the old and the new. Aris­ totle was still a standard, and great emphasis was placed upon memory training and skill in disputation. Equally im­ portant were the acquisition of eloquence and a knowledge of classical literature, especially after the appointment of the distinguished humanists Conrad Gesner and Celio Secundo Curione. From the seventh "class," at the age of six or seven, students began their study of Latin: first vocabu­ lary according to the method of Erasmus and Sturm, next grammar, and then reading and reciting poetry and prose, especially Cicero and Caesar. In the second and first classes they started Greek. Religious instruction figured quite as prominently as the liberal arts in the program of education, of course, and all of the classes studied their catechism (Calvin's) and the N e w Testament, along with translations into French. So the academy seemed to combine the best of the elegant learning of Italy with the careful religious train­ ing of the northern schools. Materially, too, the academy was successful. In 1548 there were 700 students, and as Viret reported the next year, the number was growing steadily. 20 19

Calvin to Viret, 28 Mar. 1550 (CR, 1359). The "Leges scholae Lausannensis" have been published by Meylan and Junod (see n. 15 above). 20 Viret to Haller, 3 Aug., and Calvin to Viret, 21 Oct. 1549; cf. Beza to Calvin, 20 Apr. 1551 and 10 Mar. 1554, and to Bullinger, 5 Nov. 1552 (CR, 1235, 1293, 1481, 1926, 1621; also Beza, 17, 42, 28). 56

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

Hotman's own teaching was elementary and could not have been too demanding. He taught his young charges the rudiments of dialectic according to the old question-andanswer procedure and listened to the debates in which each of them had to participate every other week. Like Ramus (though he was by no means a "Ramist") he laid particular stress on the importance of "method," which in general meant optimum mnemonic arrangement. More enjoyable to him, no doubt, were his lessons on Greek and Latin literature, which included Herodian, Xenophon, Livy, Plutarch, and Qcero. He apparently indulged himself in certain pedantic sports, which must have been over the heads of his students, for besides identifying various terms and names, he suggested emendations of classical texts and even corrections of modern commentators, such as Bude. He also took the opportunity of discussing, under cover of dialectic as well as the reading of Cicero, his own special field of Roman law and institutions.21 At the same time he did not forget his moral responsibility. He warned his students away from that "impure and ignorant rascal" Rabelais, whose books were becoming so popular in those days. To some degree Hotman was able to carry on his apprenticeship as scholar and critic. Among the by-products of these years of teaching were his commentaries on the orations of Cicero, which he dedicated to Beza; his edition of Asconius Pedianus' commentaries on the same (building upon the work of Bude, among others); and the makings at least of his Institutions of Dialectic, though he did not publish this for another twenty years. As for legal scholarship, Hotman managed to keep abreast of new developments, but his contributions were limited to translations of the Greek passages of an edition of civil law and a little tract on the law of usury, which appeared in 1551 in the wake of, 21 Com. in orationes Ciceronis, I, 3, and dedicatory letters to Johannes Lucanius, 5 May, and to Beza, n Feb. 1553 (also Beza, 30), and Dialecticae institutiones, p. 113, and dedicatory letter to Philip Ludwig, 1 Aug. 1573.

57

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

and purportedly in support of, the great treatise published by Dumoulin five years earlier, and which Hotman dedicated gratefully to his employers in Bern.22 The next year an abridged translation appeared, but the book made no very significant impact. Hotman still had not found recognition in the republic of letters; this was another part of the price of his conversion. LAUSANNE, 28 JUNE

1552

Hotman was growing increasingly restless in his lowly position, his conditiuncula, as he called it.23 This was not his idea of how best to serve the church of God, he complained to Calvin. For one thing, although he took little part in faculty politics, he was discouraged by quarrels between faculty and administration. For another he felt overburdened. Calvin himself admitted that thirty hours of classes a week was excessive and suggested that those in the afternoon be canceled, but beyond that Hotman often had to take over classes for the fast-rising and often-absent Beza. Hotman was still under Calvin's discipline, of course, and indeed the next year with his help would be received as a citizen of Geneva, but clearly he would welcome a change of scene. These were certainly disturbing as well as busy times. In 1551 another visitation, this time by the plague, emptied the school for a short time—and nearly killed Professor Beza. Still more fearful was the news from France. There the persecutions were continuing, and so was the stream of emigres, including men like Robert Estienne, the brothers Bude, Villemongis, and a certain Sieur de la Renaudie, who would later play a decisive role in Hotman's life. In order to stem this tide, Henry II had issued, in October 1551, 22 Hotman's De Usuris, dedicated to the Council of Bern, 4 Jan. 1552, received an abridged translation later that year by the ill-fated nicodemite (as Beza later regarded him), Barthelemy Aneau; cf. Ch. II, n. 27 above. 2 »CR, 1638.

58

IN T H E S H A D O W OF C A L V I N what Calvin called the "atrocious edict" of Chateaubriand, forbidding further emigration.24 Equally threatening for "those of the religion," the troubles between France and the papacy were patched up the following spring, and Henry II began to demonstrate his good faith by hardening his heart further against the reformers. The repercussions of this were felt as far away as Lausanne. In January six students from the academy set out to join reformed congregations in the south of France, some without even finishing their courses, and were arrested in Lyon and charged with heresy. One of them—that same Louis Corbeil who had stirred up so much trouble for the faculty of Lausanne—managed to escape; the others remained in prison. Calvin sent them messages of cheer, while Geneva officially joined with Lausanne, Neuchatel, Bern, Zurich, Basel, and other Swiss churches in seeking their release.25 They appealed to the French ambassador, to the Cardinal of Tournon, and finally to the King himself. But in his new mood of ostentatious orthodoxy, Henry II rejected the pleas, and in May 1553 the sentence was carried out. One by one, at the same stake, the young "martyrs of Lyon" were burned. Both Beza and Viret had been deeply involved, and the reaction in Lausanne was considerable. Not that this event, which would be lavishly celebrated in the soon-to-be-published history of Jean Crespin, was calculated to discourage the likes of Hotman. If anything he became even more emotionally committed to the Calvinist cause. Such was the overall effect, too, of an even more notorious affair of that same year. In January the Spaniard 24

To Bullinger, 5 Oct. 1551; cf. Beza to Bullinger, 29 Oct. (CR, 1525, 1540; Beza, 20). Isambert, XIII, 189. 25 "Supplicatio ministrorum Laus. Genev. et Novocom.," January 1552, and Calvin to prisoners of Lausanne, 10 June 1552 (CR, 1599, 1631); letters of prisoners to Calvin, 15 July, in Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de Geneve, ed. J.-F. Bergier, I (Geneva, 1964), 135; and Crespin, I, 671.

59

IN T H E S H A D O W OF C A L V I N Michael Servetus, who many years before had scandalized Catholics and Protestants alike with a defense of unitarianism, published his Restitution of Christianity, which not only pushed these views (some thought) to the edge of pantheism but attacked Calvin personally in the bargain. The book was denounced—to the Catholic authorities in Lyon as well as to Calvin—by none other than Hotman's friend Guillaume de Trie, who had followed him to Geneva in 1549. Like Corbeil a few months before, Servetus man­ aged to escape from Lyon but jumped literally from the fry­ ing pan into the fire, when, inexplicably, he took refuge in Geneva. 26 In August he was captured, charged with heresy, and prosecuted personally by Calvin. Despite adverse re­ actions by critics like Baudouin and Sebastian Castellio, most Swiss Protestants supported Calvin, and such faithful disciples as Hotman, Beza, and Viret drew even closer. The shock caused by the burning of the "five of Lyon" a year be­ fore did nothing to save Servetus from an identical fate. Yet outside of Geneva Calvin's popularity continued to decline. The widening split between Geneva and Bern was reflected particularly in the growing national and profes­ sional rivalry in the academy of Lausanne, and this added to Hotman's material discontents. N o t only had the Council of Bern preserved the ban on the popular weekly col­ loquies, but in September 1551 it had also decided to im­ pose the Zwinglian catechism and liturgy upon all of its sub­ ject territories. Increasingly suspicious of that "rascal" Calvin and his designs, the Bernese were quite unsympa­ thetic with him in his controversies with Bolsec in 1549 and with Troillet in the summer of 1552. And the feeling was mutual. The professors of Lausanne made formal com­ plaints about their troubles and the "pollution of the Lord's supper," presumably arising from Bernese influence; Beza 26

Viret to Gualter and Beza to Bullinger, 23 and 24 Aug. 1553 (CR, 1777, 1781). R. H. Bainton, Hunted Heretic (Boston, i960), pp. 148ΓΓ.

60

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

himself kept a record of the running conflict.27 Then in 1555 that most crucial of Calvinist doctrines, predestination, was condemned by Bern. Although Viret and Beza stayed on for another three years, this last indignity was the beginning of the end for the Calvinist party in Lausanne. But personal reasons, after all, may have counted most in Hotman's desire to leave. To his chagrin he was still a mere grammarian—a litterator, as Dumoulin put it, who still taught children.28 He did not even have his doctorate yet, while Baudouin had already established himself as one of the leaders of the new jurisprudence, to which Hotman was also devoted. Although he had been officially received as a citizen of Geneva in 1553, he had by no means given up hope of returning to France to recover his patrimony, especially after the death of his father in 1555. Whatever happened, however, he had no intention of wasting his talents in this corrupt outpost of Bern. So, over the opposition of Beza and Viret, he continued to press for permission to leave. In July 1555 Calvin finally relented, and Hotman prepared to come back to Geneva with his family, which now included two infant sons.29 He was ready for a new assignment—and a new phase of life. If Hotman's career in Lausanne was stagnant, his mind clearly was not. In particular he had, like Beza, become more prone to question political authority. Not only did he fully share Viret's and Beza's antagonism toward the increasingly arbitrary government of Bern, but he was also in the process of developing more general ideas about the problem of obedience. Viret had already elaborated upon some of his unorthodox views about the limits of political " Geneva BPU, Tronchin, Vol. 7 (cf. Vol. 64). 28 T o Bullinger, 1 Dec. 1555 (cited in Ch. II, n. 25 above). Livre des habitants de Geneve, ed. P. F. Geisendorf, I (Geneva, 1957), 27: "Le 23 de juing 1553 Fran. Hoteman, natifz de Paris, lequel fut hier receu." 29 Hotman to Calvin, 1 July, and Beza to Calvin, 29 July 1555 (CR, 2242, 2255; Beza, 64).

61

IN T H E S H A D O W OF C A L V I N obedience and about the ideally democratic character of church government, while Beza, no doubt with Viret's approval, formulated his first ideas about political resistance in 1554, emphasizing the authority of the inferior magistrates and, perhaps one of the few ideas derived from his short time as a law student, the inviolability of customary law. There is no way of showing, and no need to assume, any specific "influence" of Beza upon Hotman or of Viret upon either.30 All three were deeply in the debt of Calvin with his basically fundamentalist orientation, and most likely also of the old tradition of civic liberties, especially as expressed in the recently circulated "Magdeburg Bekenntnis." In any case all three were obliged by circumstances— conflict with Bern and ostracism from France—to concern themselves with the most fundamental political questions. In this way Hotman, who had the advantage of bringing a more thorough legal training to such problems, was becoming more independent in his views and more impatient with authority. Already, in fact, he had ventured into the field of political and ecclesiastical polemic.

GENEVA,

12 N O V E M B E R

1554

A face from the past had appeared to divert Hotman's attention from his rather humdrum teaching duties, for it was none other than Charles Dumoulin who drew Hotman into the arena of public controversy. Having come to Geneva to visit Calvin and other friends, Hotman took time to dash off a letter to Heinrich Bullinger—principal preacher (antistes) of Zurich, successor to Zwingli, and likewise a friend of Dumoulin—to say that he was sending a copy of 30

Beza, De Haereticis . . . (Geneva, 1554), a n ( l· e-g-> Viret, Remonstrances aux fideles (Geneva, 1547); c f· R· M. Kingdon, "The First Expression of Theodore Beza's Political Ideas," Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte, XLVI (1955), 88-99, a n d R · D. Linder, The Political Ideas of Pierre Viret (Geneva, 1964), pp. 1275. 62

IN T H E S H A D O W OF C A L V I N

the little book which he had written on Dumoulin's behalf.31 This work, dealing with one of the central concepts, or myths, of Protestant thought, was his State of the Primitive Church, and it was published in Geneva by Jean Crespin under the transparent pseudonym "Franciscus Villerius," after the fief which Hotman was still hoping to inherit. The circumstances surrounding this, the first of Hotman's essays in ecclesiastical polemic, are of some significance in the shaping of his future career and require a brief review. One day early in October 1552 Dumoulin had arrived at Hotman's house with a very sad tale to tell, though Hotman no doubt had already heard some of it.32 Earlier that year Dumoulin had published a fiery tract which, while ostensibly written in defense of the policy and prerogatives of Henry II, was more conspicuously a broadside attack upon the church of Rome and all of its "human traditions" (as with Luther and Calvin, the phrase was wholly derogatory). "The Pope, the papists, and the Sorbonists resemble no one so much," Dumoulin had concluded, "as that false prophet and antichrist of the East, Mahomet." At the time writing this book had seemed a good idea, especially since Henry II himself had commissioned it. The recalling of the Council of Trent announced by Pope Julius III in November 1550, combined with the unsettled problem of the Parmesan succession, had created a serious "Gallican crisis," leading to a diplomatic break with Rome in September 1551 and threatening to cause a schism. This seemed to be a golden opportunity for the reformers, who had some support at court from a group of liberal Gallicans including Jean de Montluc and Jean du Tillet. Dumoulin was chosen to put his knowledge of canon law and Gallican "Zurich SA, E.II.356, f. u 8 r . 32 Hotman to Calvin, 25 Nov. 1552 (CR, 1675). Dumoulin's book was Commentariae ad edictum Henrici secundi contra parvus datas et abusus curiae Romanae (Lyon, 1552), also translated into French (Opera, IV, 508). 63

IN T H E S H A D O W OF C A L V I N precedent to work for the monarchy, and the result was his highly polemical defense of Henry's edict of 1550 against the abuse of the papal chancery commonly known as the "little dates," involving the pre-dating of privileges. The book was a sensation. "Sire," Montmorency told the King, "what Your Majesty has been unable to accomplish with 30,000 troops, to curb Pope Julius, this little man . . . has done with a little pamphlet." This work, with its royal privilege, was soon translated into French and made a particularly happy impression in Switzerland. Protestants "gave thanks to God," as one observer wrote, "that enlightenment had come to France." 33 But enlightenment had not come to France. Henry II was unwilling to take the schismatic path of Henry VIII of England (whom Dumoulin, a professed relative of Anne Boleyn, had praised extravagantly in his book), and already the Cardinal of Tournon was in Rome trying to patch up the quarrel with the Pope. By February these peace-making efforts were successful, and a new nuncio came from Rome. It was then that the King, in order to show his good faith, reverted to his old heresy-hunting habits. By May the reaction was in full swing. "The Sorbonists, like sworn soldiers of the Pope," Dumoulin later recalled, "preached rabblerousing sermons to persuade the people that to find salvation they had to believe and to do all that the Pope commanded." 34 Others declaimed against the alliance with the German princes. The Cardinal of Bourbon, then the Governor of Paris, went so far as to declare that he loved the Pope more than the King. It was a bad time for moderates, not to speak of radicals like Dumoulin. Among the victims of this reaction were the five "martyrs of Lyon," Francois 33 Histoire particulier de la court du Roy Henry II (Paris BN, 2831, f. 189; Dupuy, 86, f. 15), published and attributed to Claude de l'Aubespine in ACF, ser. 1, III, 289; cf. Brodeau, Charles Du Molin, p. 78. 34 Contra parvas datas {Opera, IV, 380). Documents on this crisis in Ribier, II, 343fF.

64

IN T H E S H A D O W OF C A L V I N Rabelais (or at least his Quart Hvre), and Dumoulin himself. Like Rabelais, but unfortunately without his powerful friends, Dumoulin found himself charged with heresy by the Sorbonne and forced to defend himself before the Parlement of Paris, wliich he had served for so long. 3 5 Among his judges were Michel de l'Hopital, Andre Tiraqueau, and one of Hotman's in-laws, Henri de Marie, as well as Pierre Hotman's old chief on the Chambre Ardente, that bloody beard-hater Pierre Lizet. T o hear Dumoulin tell it, the Sorbonists tried to bribe him to be silent. But he was too proud: "Considering my rank of doctor, I said that it was against my conscience," he wrote in a later edition of his commentary on the "little dates," "unless they would mend their ways." A bold stand, worthy of comparison with Lu­ ther's legendary hier steW ich, but like Luther he had little interest in martyrdom. He also had good legal sense, and he must have known that his was a lost cause once his book was banned. In any case he did not wait around to find out. Before his final hearing, that is, by the end of June, he was gone. At the age of fifty-two he was at last going to make his "Swiss voyage." Dumoulin had a number of Protestant contacts besides Hotman. T w o years before he had been commissioned by Philip of Hesse to submit a legal opinion in his suit with the Emperor. By March 1552, moreover, he was in correspond­ ence with Calvin, to whom Hotman had long been recom­ 36 mending him. He also knew Bullinger and the Amerbachs in Basel, and this in fact was the first refuge he chose after his flight from Paris. He was offered a teaching post, but he turned it down in order to steal back to France in Septem­ ber. It was useless. "Day and night," he wrote to Bullinger, "spies were roaming about my house," which indeed was pillaged for the second time, resulting in the loss of his 35 Paris A N , X i a , 1572, ίϊ. 86, i2i, 144, 236, 239, published by me in Traditio, XXII (1966), 399-402. se CR, 1618.

65

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

books.37 Again he took flight, following much the same route as Hotman had taken some four years earlier. Lyon he found infested with his enemies, the henchmen of the Cardinal of Tournon (who personally commissioned one counterattack against Dumoulin's book), and so he pushed on to Lausanne. This is how in early October Hotman came to find Dumoulin on his doorstep. He made him welcome, gave him the use of his library, and listened to his tale of woe. It was in this roundabout way that Hotman was drawn into the first major controversy of his career. This controversy revolved about the problem posed by canon law, namely, the contrast between the unpopular and ungainly papal monarchy of modern times and the uncomplicated and uncorrupted church of early Christianity. Luther, with an audience of enthusiastic students, had expressed his view of the matter unmistakably by throwing the corpus of canon law into a bonfire. Calvin chose a milder approach and, in the 1543 edition of his Institution, tried to show "what the primitive church was really like" and how it had been defiled by idolatry and "human traditions." It was this interpretation that furnished the point of departure for both Dumoulin and Hotman. In the early 1550's this theme was taken up by several authors besides Dumoulin, who stood at varying distances from the "so-called reformed religion." One was Baudouin's elder colleague at Bourges, Le Douaren, who in 1551 published a learned critique of ecclesiastical benefices—and who in future years had to answer for it to the Parlement. 87

To Bullinger, Geneva, 14 Oct. 1552 (CR, 1663). Dumoulin tells the story of his troubles in a later edition of his Contra parvas datas and in numerous, mostly unpublished, letters, the most important of which are those to Bullinger (Zurich SA, E.II.338, 356, and 358; Simler's copies in Zurich ZB, S. 79, 81-84, and 86), to Amerbach (Basel UB, G.II.21 and G.I.25), and to Curione (G.I.60 and G2.II.4o), and it is from this correspondence (1552-57) that the present account is drawn.

66

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

A less welcome ally was the "libertine" Rabelais, whose Quart livre of 1552 included a satirical attack upon "papemania." The next year Beza, calling himself "Benedict Passavant," launched an equally amusing assault upon the rednosed and redder-handed "ass-president," or rather "former president and now abbot," Pierre Lizet (who had justified his work on the Chambre Ardente with a pamphlet against the "pseudo-evangelical heresy").38 It was with ammunition taken from pontifical and "uncivil" law that Lizet "cannonaded," Beza punned, "that is, bombarded his enemies." Beza shared the sixteenth-century fondness for excretory imagery: as Luther applied scatological terms to the papal curia and as Rabelais derided the papal "excretals," so Beza attacked their ultimate source, that "latrine of Gratian called the Decretum," which he regarded as nothing less than the Bible of antichrist. At about this time Hotman decided to join in the fun. During 1553, a Sorbonist doctor named Raymond le Roux published a response to Dumoulin's work on the "little dates," and this moved Hotman to write something in "our Dumoulin's cause"—and needless to say Calvin's as well.39 The resulting pamphlet on The State of the Primitive Church was an attack on Roman tyranny in general and Le Roux' obscurantism in particular. There was not much original in the book; it was essentially a restatement of Calvin's position. Most significant was that, to the conventional arguments drawn from scriptures and history, Hotman added legal allegations, of which 38

Beza, Epistola ?nagistri Benedicti Passavanti responsiva a commissiones sibi datam a venerabile Petro Lyseto (Geneva, 1553) (Le Passava?», p. 49); Lizet, Adversum pseudoevangelium haeresim (Paris, 1551); Le Douaren, De Sacris ministeriis ac beneficiis (Paris, 1551); anonymous, Errores . . . Caroli Molinaei (Paris BN, Lat. n.a., 533). 39 The De Statu primitivae ecclesiae, published by Crespin, was in response to Le Roux, In Molinaeum pro pontifice; both works, together with Le Roux' Duplicatio in patronum Molinaei, pro pontifice maximo, and Dumoulin's Contra parvas datas, appear in the latter's Opera, IV, $51^·

67

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN he found Le Roux "childishly" ignorant. His main target was that "Trojan horse" of the canonists, the Corpus juris canonici, which he attacked from a philological as well as a Protestant point of view. Like Dumoulin he rejected the notion of papal supremacy on grounds not only of theology (Christ, not the Pope, is the head of the church) but also of jurisdiction (the organization of the church was national, not Roman). At the same time, Hotman could not quite rid himself of the habits of a teacher of the liberal arts. As a rhetorician he objected to Le Roux' pretentious Ciceronian style, as a grammarian to his sloppy use of terms (in order to attribute a false antiquity to ecclesiastical institutions), and as a dialectician to his frequent sophistries. Hotman showed that he, too, could play the game, and with great relish he mocked the argument for Roman supremacy with a syllogism made up of Le Roux' own admissions: the church first existed in the East; but the church was never without an episcopus; therefore, the episcopus first existed in the East, not in Rome. The book was not exacdy a masterpiece, though it aroused enough interest for the publisher to bring out a second edition in 1554; but it does throw some light upon Hotman's style of argument—judging the present in terms of an idealized past, buttressing this through a wide and often eclectic array of historical and legal authorities, and discrediting his opponent with every weapon at his command. And no doubt he was glad to be aroused from his academic routine and to be able to show off his scholarly ability. By way of introducing himself, he sent the book to various Protestant personages, including Philip Melanchthon. At the same time, he had the satisfaction of bearing witness, frankly if pseudonymously, to his faith and of lending a hand to an old friend. By this time, however, it was beginning to appear that this old friend did not need help—or rather that he was beyond helping. After leaving Hotman in Lausanne in October 1552, Dumoulin had gone on to Geneva and apparently 68

IN THE SHADOW OF CALVIN

spent the winter there. But unlike Hotman he did not come as a suppliant; Calvin, his junior by a decade, he called not "father" but "brother." Incapable of being anyone's disciple, he continued then and afterwards to keep his own theological counsel. In April he resumed his travels. He considered teaching in Lausanne but rejected the idea because it might put him in competition with Hotman. Strasbourg was another possibility, and in fact with the help of Calvin and Farel he actually received an appointment as professor of law (which would have made him the first to hold such a position). But in the end he accepted an offer from the Duke of Wiirttemberg, whose most attractive quality was that he happened to be on good terms with Henry II. In December 1553 Dumoulin became councilor to Duke Christoph and professor of law at the University of Tubingen. Dumoulin was like Hotman in one way: misfortune did not temper, it inspired him. In his rousing inaugural lecture at Tubingen he returned with gusto to the attack upon popery. But this was another mistake.40 If it pleased the Calvinists, it could hardly help his cause, which as his wife reminded him was to gain admittance back into France. What was just as bad, his forays into theology made him suspect in the eyes of his Lutheran colleagues and finally alienated him from the Duke as well, who was trying to remain on a reasonably good footing with the Emperor. Even Calvin suggested that Dumoulin behave more circumspectly. But this he was temperamentally incapable of doing. To Hotman—who later would be able to sympathize much *o Solemnis oratio . . . de sacra theologia et legum imperialium dignitate, differentia, convenientia, corruptione et resthutione (Tubingen, 1554), delivered 27 Dec. 1553, according to a letter to Bullinger, 1 Jan. 1554 (Zurich SA, E.II.386, f. 268r). Corrections of Brodeau in Jean Carbonnier, "Dumoulin a Tubingue," Revue general de droit, XL (1936), 194-209; on the Strasbourg offer, letter to Bullinger, Neuchatel, 3 Sept. 1553 (Zurich ZB, S. 79, f. 82 r ), and Joseph Duquesne, Les Debuts de Penseignement du droit a Strasbourg au XVle siecle (Strasbourg, 1922); recommendations from Farel and Calvin in Fournier, IV, 64. 69

IN T H E S H A D O W OF CALVIN

more with the problem of dealing with hard-line Lutherans —he complained of being surrounded by "papists," who for their part suspected him of inclining toward the doctrine of Zwingli. Nonsense, he told Bullinger (the greatest Zwinglian of them all). "I am neither Zwinglian nor Lutheran but Christian and an enemy of all faction." But at Tubingen he found himself in a faction of one. Called to account by Duke Christoph, he was forced to submit a written promise that he would cease his trouble-marking.41 So he did—but only because he resigned a few weeks later and fled from this second "Egypt." No doubt glad to be rid of him, Christoph provided him with a letter of introduction to his uncle, Count George of Montbeliard. To this recently reformed town Dumoulin came in December 1554. His standards were as inflexible as ever, however, and he soon found that the university here did not measure up to them either. For the next year he continued to look for greener pastures.42 Once again he thought of Strasbourg, but by now this was too late, for in the summer of 1555 the position had been taken by another of Dumoulin's proteges —another face from his and Hotman's past—Francois Baudouin. In September Dumoulin came to see Sturm, Sleidan, and other friends, and also to compare notes with Baudouin. It was precisely at this point that Hotman arrived on the scene. Once again, but for the last time, these three entangled but essentially incompatible lives converged. Indeed, it marked the final parting of the ways, and a new road altogether for Hotman. 41 Dumoulin's promise in Basel UB, G.II.21, f. 126 (6 Apr. 1554); on his troubles in general, letters to Bullinger, 1 Mar., 20 Apr., and 4 Sept. 1554 (Zurich SA, E.II.356, f. 128, and Zurich ZB, S. 81, f. 89, and S. 82, f. 154; CR, 2006); to Calvin, 21 Mar., and from Calvin 29 July 1554 (CR, 1932); Hotman to Bullinger, 12 Nov. 1554 (Zurich SA, E.II.356, f. 118')· 42 Letters to Bullinger, 10 Dec. 1554, 1 and 5 May 1555 (Zurich ZB, S. 83, f. 96, and Zurich SA, E.II.356, if. 141, 137), and to Amerbach, 10 Dec. 1555 (Basel UB, G.II.21, f. 119).

70

From Pierre de l'Estoile, Les Belles Figures et drolleries de la Ligue [1589], (Paris B N , Rés, G r . fol. La 2 5 .6)

,

-

• •

'

'

•

"

-

"

'

"

(Below, left) Contracts of Hotman and Francois Baudouin with the University of Strasbourg (Strasbourg AST, No. 345, f.g"·, 286Ό

Francois Dubois d'Amiens, in Henri Bordier, La Saint-Barthelemy et la critique moderne (Paris, 1879)

-

Hotman, by Jean-Jacques Boissard, in T h . de Bry, Icones quinquaginta virorum (Frankfurt, 1597), III, 140

IV. A CONFUSION OF T O N G U E S STRASBOURG,

1555-1558

"I wish you would learn to laugh at or to scorn those little troubles which bother you so much, before your sharp temper discredits you among many good men." Calvin to Hotman, 1556

STRASBOURG, 2 OCTOBER

1555

arrived by boat at this multi-lingual, multi-confessional Protestant haven. Armed with a letter from Calvin, he was welcomed by Sturm, Sleidan, Peter Martyr, and other academic persons, and he set about the business of settling down with his family.1 Unless he could recover his patrimony, he told his Swiss friends, he planned to stay here, and in fact Strasbourg remained his chief place of residence for eight years. Here he began to move out of Calvin's shadow to some extent, though he was never able to escape from the penumbral influence entirely. Hotman's move had been planned with some care. After leaving Lausanne the previous July, he had gone to Geneva to consult with Calvin about his next step, and Calvin had arranged for him to come to the gymnasium of Strasbourg, where he himself had once taught with Sturm. Very likely it was with Calvin's advice, too, that the next month Hotman dedicated to Sturm his newest book (the first, incidentally, to show his allegiance to the humanistic school of law in which Baudouin was a rising figure). For a few weeks in the fall Hotman traveled in Switzerland, visiting some old friends and making some new ones. He saw Bullinger and Rudolph Gualter in Zurich, Johann Wolf in Bern, and Sebastian Castellio, Bonifacius and his son Basilius HOTMAN

1

Hotman to Amerbach, 8 Oct. 1555 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. ii4 r ).

71

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S Amerbach, of the renowned printing family, in Basel; with Bullinger, Gualter, and the Amerbachs he maintained extensive correspondence from this time on.2 Then, at the beginning of October, with his wife and two young sons, he made his Rhine journey from Basel to the free city of Strasbourg. Shortly after his arrival, Hotman paid a visit to Dumoulin, delivered a letter to him from the elder Amerbach, and exchanged gossip about various mutual friends, including Baudouin. It was clear that Dumoulin, still on the run, found exile much more trying than Hotman did. His family, his books, and his heart were still in Paris; his whole life had been disrupted, and he was too old to start afresh. He had been trying frantically to get back into the King's good graces or, failing that, to find a position worthy of both his dignity and his personality—by no means an easy requirement even with the proper support, since he insisted not only upon doctrinal purity and academic freedom but also upon short-term status so that he could return to France when the call came. He sought help from many quarters, from such sympathetic scholars as Bullinger, Amerbach, Curione, and Sleidan, from the French and English ambassadors, and from several Protestant princes in Germany. Although not involved directly, Hotman followed these maneuvers with some interest and, it must be said, with increasing distaste, although in later years his own career would follow a similar pattern of chronic dissatisfaction, continual movement, and incessant calls for help. So far Dumoulin's luck had been all bad. He was determined to leave Montbeliard, but where could he go now? 2 Calvin to Sturm, 16 July 1555; Beza to Bullinger, 21 July, sending letters along with Hotman; Sleidan to Calvin, 17 Aug.; Hotman to Wolf, Zurich, 31 July; Hotman to Bullinger, 29 Sept.; Sleidan to Calvin, 11 Oct., remarking that Hotman had brought his letters (CR, 2246, 2249, and Beza, 63; Zurich ZB, F. 39, f. i82 r ; CR, 2309, 2319); and Hotman's dedicatory letter to Sturm, 16 Aug., in Africanus.

72

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

Marburg, from which he received one offer, was too remote and probably too Lutheran. He still spoke of the Strasbourg chair held by Baudouin as "my place," but he had been assured by Baudouin himself that doctrinally it was worse than Tubingen. Another possibility was Heidelberg, but unfortunately—as he most indiscretely told both Hotman and Calvin—the equally restless Baudouin was already in negotiation with the Elector Palatine about this position. By the beginning of 1556, back in Montbeliard, Dumoulin was getting desperate, and from then on his story becomes increasingly bizarre. Despite his contract he sent off a secret and self-advertizing letter to the rector of the academy of Dole, including a curriculum vitae and in effect a request for asylum.3 "The bearer, my secretary," he added, "is loyal." Indeed he was, but unfortunately not to Dumoulin: he reported directly to Count George, and Dumoulin was arrested the very next day. Again, this time from his prison cell in Blaumont, Dumoulin began to cast about for help from those friends he still had left, complaining as much about being deprived of secretarial service (his handwriting, uneven and labored in a curiously juvenile way at best, had degenerated noticeably) as about the injustice done to him. Finally, Amerbach agreed to go surety for him. By this time, however, Dumoulin apparently did not feel bound by any agreement. He was hardly out of prison when he fled to Dole, where he opened a course on civil law and renewed his complaints. Even then his travels were not over. The new sovereign of Dole, which was in Franche-Comte, was Philip II of Spain, who refused to have in his dominions such a radical 3 Doleanus rector, 20 Jan. 1555; to Amerbach, Blaumont, 1 Mar. 1555 (and later letters); from Amerbach, 25 Sept. 1555; to Christoph von Wiirttemberg, 25 Mar. 1556 (Basel UB, G.II.21, f. io8 r ; G.I.25, f. 65 r ; G2.I.22.i, f. 69'; G.II.21, f. 24'). Discussion also by Rene Filhol, "Dumoulin a Montbeliard (1555-1556)," Etudes historiques a la memoire de Noel Didier (Paris, i960), pp. m-19.

73

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

and unstable character, a man who had criticized his father 4 Charles V in public. After only five lectures, then, Dumou­ lin had to be on his way once more. His last stop was Besan50η, where he enjoyed a grand house and an even grander salary. But he was barely settled when news of his wife's death arrived, and somehow he was permitted to return to Paris. By January 1557 he was back, and the next year, "for services to the crown" as the royal letter put it, he finally re­ ceived his pardon. He had recovered his nationality, but he would never (as we shall have occasion to notice) recover his equanimity. For the rest of his life he remained a lonely, bitter, and still inflexible man. To a large extent, it must be admitted, Dumoulin's trou­ bles were his own doing, and yet obviously there was in his character a strong element of idealism as well as a total in­ ability to accept any discipline but his own. More and more he came to be persuaded that the organization of the Swiss churches was incompatible with his Gallican, indeed prac­ tically Caesaro-papist program, although this did not in the slightest diminish his contempt for Rome or even his attach­ ment to a reformed theology. In seizing upon this contradic­ tion Dumoulin was underscoring a problem that was to plague French society for a century and more. It is not sur­ prising that his work enjoyed periodic if not continuous popularity in France and, especially after the religious wars had run their course, that it was incorporated into the political canon of Gallicanism. For the same reason it is not surprising, either, that he parted company with the Calvinists. Hotman broke off re­ lations with Dumoulin completely, and they never met again after 1555. There was a certain amount of personal * Letter to Amerbach, 20 June 1556 (Basel UB, G.II.21, f. 144'), and Quinque lectiones solemnes dolanae (Geneva, 1594). Background in Lucien Febvre, Philip Π et la Franche-Comte (Paris, 1911), p. 479, P. Pialat, Dumoulin a I'Universite de Dole (1555-1556) (Dole, 1844), and U. Robert, L'Enseignement a Besanfon jusqu'a la fin du XVIe Steele (Besan5on, 1900); Dumoulin's pardon in Isambert, XIII, 502.

74

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

animosity. Within two months of their last encounter Dumoulin was complaining to Amerbach about this "grammarian Hotman," calling him a bird who "plumed himself with my feathers"—a reference to his book on usury and very possibly a reflection of Baudouin's hostile influence.5 For his part Hotman was disgusted at Dumoulin's irregular behavior, especially at his betrayal of their mutual friend Amerbach and of Count George of Montbeliard. But the central reason for their break was ideological: Frenchman though he was, Hotman continued to give first priority to the "Calvinist Cause." STRASBOURG, 25 MARCH

1556

Hotman had seen the last of Dumoulin, but now another ghost from his pre-Protestant past had returned to haunt him. Francois Baudouin, still on very friendly terms with Dumoulin, had just published a book which sent Hotman into a rage. It appeared anonymously, and it was called Response of Christian Jurists to the Commentaries of Frangois le Douaren on the Ministers of the Church. In this work Baudouin not only managed to insinuate himself into the controversy over the "primitive church" to which Hotman had contributed, but also went on to attack Hotman personally. In his anger Hotman dashed off letters both to Calvin and to Bullinger, who were well aware of the old animosity between the two scholars.6 So was rekindled a conflict that would leave its mark not only on two promising careers but also upon the Protestant movement as a whole. It goes without saying that there was another and more immediate problem than personal dislike or religious difference. Hotman's reasons for coming to Strasbourg were clear enough: he meant to carry on his career as Calvinist agent 5 Hotman to Calvin, 21 June 1556 (CR, 2481); Dumoulin to Amerbach, 1 Dec. 1555 (cited Ch. II, n. 25 above). 6 To Calvin and Bullinger (CR, 2416, 2417).

75

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

and legal scholar. The trouble was that the single existing chair had, with Sturm's help, been given to Baudouin. How could he get around this obstacle? This is a story in itself, and to tell it requires going back to the time of Baudouin's first "defection," as Hotman called it, and retracing the eccentric path which he had chosen. By the summer of 1548, when Hotman could think of nothing but finding a way to join his new "father" in Geneva, Baudouin had made a crucial decision: he would not build his career in the shadow of Calvin; above service in the Genevan corps he had chosen a position at the University of Bourges. He made some effort to defend himself against the "calumnies" of certain friends, Hotman being the most prominent, who, playing upon his alias "Petrus Rochius," suggested that doctrinally he was made of wax rather than stone (cera potius quam petra); but apparently his resolution did not prevent him from reverting to Romanist forms of worship at Bourges.7 In any case, from his publications over more than six years, including his studies of the earliest laws of the Roman republic and his great commentary on the Institutes (which Hotman, of course merely sniffed at; he already knew all that), it seems fair to conclude that Baudouin had set ancient Rome above the new Jerusalem. This in fact was the conclusion of his enemies, though they were wrong in thinking that he was diverted from the religious question altogether. When Baudouin arrived at Bourges in the fall of 1548, the law faculty had already gained international renown as a center of legal humanism, especially through the reputations of Eguinaire Baron and Francois le Douaren, first and second professors of law, and through the encouragement of Marguerite of Navarre, the Duchess of Berry, and her chancellor, Michel de l'Hopital. Academically it was the best in Europe, in the opinion of Rabelais, who accordingly sent Pantagruel there to study. But the University of 'Letter to Calvin, 5 Nov. 1552 (CR, 1672). See p. 38.

76

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S Bourges was not only the home of the reformed jurisprudence of Alciato, it was also a popular refuge for the reformed religion of Alciato's most famous student, Calvin. Beginning about a quarter-century before, Lutheranisn had invaded the town of Bourges and later, with the help of Melchior Wolmar, the university. By the time Baudouin arrived, there had arisen within the law faculty a powerful current of Calvinism that further polarized the factions which had gathered around Baron and Le Douaren. The ensuing conflict was serious enough to send Le Douaren to Paris in 1547 for an unsuccessful fling at legal practice, but in 1550, with the death of Baron and the urging of the Duchess and L'Hopital, he returned to become first professor of law. Baudouin, who had been a friend and, as he thought, successor of Baron, was second professor, and Hugues Doneau, protege of Le Douaren and later close friend of Hotman, was third professor. Baudouin soon found himself at odds with Le Douaren and his followers, for what reason it is not entirely clear. In this little academic war personal ambition, theological differences, and conflicts with the town over taxes and jurisdiction all played a part. Baudouin's salary was substantially less than Le Douaren's (350 livres as against 920). 8 On the other hand, it was suggested that Baudouin's attendance at classes was not as regular as it should have been. Inevitably, student opinion was divided as well, and in 1552, when their right to elect their own rector was withdrawn by royal order, there were serious disorders. One of Le Douaren's students, a German boy named Daniel Schleicher, was killed in a dispute. Those in Baudouin's faction protested the death sentence handed down to the two alleged culprits, and they burned Le Douaren in effigy. Some of the more serious students, as one of Baudouin's 8 Louis Le Caron, prefatory letter to his edition of Zasius, Catalogus legum (Paris, 1555), and Cisner (cited Ch. II, n. 17 above). Cf. Louis Raynal, Histoire du Berry (Bourges, 1844), III, 372ff; A. Eyssell, Doneau (Dijon, i860); and Bayle's article on "Duaren."

77

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

own disciples wrote, became disgusted at such "seditious acts." Finally a petition in the name of the German nation was presented by Nicolas Cisner, another of Le Douaren's proteges, to the Parlement of Paris in order to stop the violence. In the long run this proved hopeless, and Bourges remained a storm center for many years, as Hotman, Doneau, Cujas, and others would learn at first hand. The immediate effect was to make Baudouin's position untenable. Early in 1555, therefore, allegedly because of his aversion to "idolatry," he left secretly in the company of the theologian Louis Boquin. It was then, after visiting Calvin in Geneva and Dumoulin in Montbeliard, that he took his position at the gymnasium of Strasbourg. Dumoulin's letter insured a welcome by Sturm and Martyr, and in July he signed a substantial six-year contract calling for a salary of 160 florins the first year and possible raises thereafter.9 But the trouble with Le Douaren was by no means over, and Hotman was the one who made sure that this was so. Shortly after arriving in Strasbourg, Baudouin delivered a lecture which, besides applauding the new jurisprudence, represented its leader Le Douaren as a man and a Christian of bad faith, though without naming him. Then Hotman found out about this and sent a copy of the lecture back to Le Douaren. Just before leaving Lausanne in July 1555 he received a reply from Le Douaren, attacking this "pettifogger" who was spewing out his impieties in Germany.10 "Ecebolius" (who had been Julian the Apostate's teacher) was his epithet for Baudouin, and it stuck with him for the 9 Strasbourg AST, No. 345, f. 4% 25 July 1555; Dumoulin to Bullinger, Montbeliard, 10 Dec. 1554 (Zurich ZB, S. 83, f. 90'), and to Amerbach, 22 Feb. 1555 (Basel UB, G.II.21, f. 1131). 10 Juris civilis schola Argentinensis (Strasbourg, 1555); Le Douaren to Hotman, 1 July 1555 (CR, 2241), also published as Defensio adversus Balbini Poecilomorphi sychophantae maledicta et contumelias scripta ad Franc. Hotomanum (Lyon, 1555; LC copy); and see below p. 143.

78

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

rest of his life. Most likely Hotman used this little scandal, when he arrived in Geneva a few days later, to increase Calvin's distrust of Baudouin (for Calvin himself later published the damaging letter); he certainly used it to try to discredit Baudouin with Sturm after coming to Strasbourg to seek a position. What happened during the winter is not entirely clear. Baudouin complained to Dumoulin about Strasbourg; Dumoulin complained about Hotman; Hotman complained about both and set about making his own position more secure. In January he had managed to obtain the coveted right of citizenship (droit de bourgeois), and by this time he was also giving lessons in civil law, though he still lacked university status. He must have been a popular teacher or else a very skillful intriguer, for the next month he obtained a petition signed by 34 students (40, he told Amerbach) and with Sturm's help was put on a salary of 40 florins.11 Still he was not satisfied, as Sturm later claimed, and continued to press for more money and status. It was in these circumstances that Hotman was confronted with the book by Baudouin that reignited the quarrel with Le Douaren. He had no doubt about its author and indeed seemed to have inside information. Baudouin had, as Hotman told Bullinger, "secretly seen to the publication of it so that no pages should be taken out by the printer at any price." What is more, ten days earlier he had received from Baudouin a "non-gift," namely, a copy of Le Roux's recent response (duplicatio) to his little tract on the primitive church. "Never have I read anything more inept," Hotman added. Le Roux had at least been decent enough not to give away Hotman's name, but Baudouin had no such scruples. Hotman used the name "Villerius," he explained to Amer11

Strasbourg AST, Carton, Universite 2, No. 324, f. 242 (in Fournier, IV, 66); Hotman to Amerbach, 20 Jan. and 9 Feb. 1556 (Basel UB, G.II.19, S. 112, 115); Dumoulin to Bullinger, 5 Nov. 1555 (Zurich ZB, S. 86, f. 4 r ) .

79

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S bach, "because my family thinks that I am devoted to noth­ 12 ing except civil law." His reputation now, he remarked, was that of a "monster from France," and it was a particu­ larly embarrassing time for his identity to become public. "If I can bring my mother to a knowledge of the Lord," he confessed, " I do not intend to stay here very long." It was almost as if he and Baudouin had changed roles and now Hotman was playing the nicodemite. " H e declares that I changed my name in a religious cause," Hotman wrote, "that Le Roux will triumph if I do not write a 'triplicatio.' What kind of outlandish zeal does he require of me? Would he take pleasure in seeing me burned in effigy in Paris, my property confiscated, and my sons exposed to calamity?"

STRASBOURG, 24

APRIL

1556

Hotman may have exaggerated Baudouin's hostility, but not by much. For Baudouin did not want his name exhib­ ited in such a context any more than Hotman did, and now he was just as angry. He had received a visit from Hotman himself—for such, very likely, was the "Gallo-Germanic spy for Le Douaren" referred to—who had stayed for breakfast and dinner and then had begun to speak of his discussions 13 with Calvin. Evidently he had not been very diplomatic. "What a foolish dolt he must think I am," Baudouin exclaimed to Calvin, "not to suspect what he has been and still is doing." The cause of religion was in a sad condition, he continued, when such a counterfeit German (adulterogermanus) could amuse himself in this way. "What wretches we are to fight among ourselves so!" Like Dumou12

To Amerbach, 20 Apr. 1556 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 116'), remark­ ing on Baudouin's Responsio Christianorum jurisconsultorum ad Fr. Duareni commentarios. . . (Strasbourg, 1556); cf. η. 1 above; also letter to Melanchthon, 24 May 1556 (Paris BN, Dupuy, 797, f. 212'; see Appendix III below). 13 To Calvin (CR, 2438); and to Amerbach, 25 Apr. 1556 (Basel UB, G.II.21, f. 144'·, see Appendix II below); cf. Calvin to Hotman, 24 May 1556, and to Quercetanus, 21 June 1558 (CR, 2466, 2896). 80

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

lin, Baudouin was beginning to feel that many persons were conspiring against him, "whether from malice or from bad conscience." As for the book itself, the Response of Christian Jurists, he had no idea who the authors were. But if he had to be torn by wild beasts for the sake of religion, he was willing. Admirable sentiments, but Calvin had heard them before, and he certainly could not believe this disclaimer. In any case this was apparently the last letter he received from Baudouin, who thus followed Dumoulin out of the Calvinist fold and, thanks to Hotman, found a place very near the top of Calvin's blacklist. There was, of course, an ideological as well as personal side to this rupture, although the issues would not be clearly drawn for another few years. What was most noticeable in the Response of Christian Jurists was Baudouin's growing bitterness and independence of mind. He assailed the conservatism of Le Douaren, especially for his complacent attitude toward canon law, even more than the overt popery of Lizet and Le Roux; and he dismissed Hotman's essay as self-serving and insignificant,14 though agreeing with his strictures against Gratian. The only books for which he had many kind words were those of Dumoulin and of Beza. They alone, it seemed to him, maintained the correct line of argument laid down by Calvin and Bullinger. But he was deluding himself; it was the crypto-Calvinist Le Douaren rather than the on-again-off-again Calvinist Baudouin with whom Calvin, and needless to say Hotman and Beza, sided. The truth is that Baudouin, like Dumoulin, was not amenable to anyone else's discipline. Nor was he very deeply concerned with theology. What interested him was ecclesiology, and his purpose, like that of his friends Castellio and Erasmus before him, was increasingly to find a basis for conciliation and cooperation between all Protestant factions in the face of the growing ultramontane threat. In general 14

Responsio Christianorum jurisconsultorum, p. 8. 81

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S the best way to avoid petty interconfessional squabbles seemed to lie in the program of Melanchthon (though even the Lutherans could not seem to make up their minds about it), and already Baudouin was moving in this direction. Unfortunately, a rapprochement with the Lutherans was just what the Calvinists could least afford, especially at Strasbourg where they were in a minority and increasingly intimidated by the Germans (even more than by the Zwinglians at Lausanne, where Hotman learned his lesson). T o the Calvinists, then, Baudouin's pacificism, even if authentic, seemed to them basically a Lutheran weapon, and the events of the next few years seemed to confirm this view. This is the background of Baudouin's departure from Strasbourg. Hotman was certainly instrumental in exposing his rival's past crimes and present fury—so much so, indeed, that Calvin warned him to "curb his excessive temper." But Hotman had convinced himself, and so protested to Martyr, that his actions were for the sake of the church of God; and it was in fact the French church, as Beza later confessed, which drove Baudouin away.15 On the other hand Baudouin was already disenchanted with Strasbourg and might well have left under his own power anyway. As he told Dumoulin in the fall of 1555, at about the same time that Hotman was arriving, he was thinking seriously of moving on to Heidelberg, where his friend Boquin had gone. He entered into negotiations with Otto Henry, the Elector Palatine, and in January, according to Hotman, had not only accepted 100 thalers from him but had used Hotman's name as a reference. In March Baudouin dedicated his first major ecumenical work, his Constantine the Great, to the Elector, who a few weeks later was officially con15 To Bullinger, 8 May, and to Calvin, 4 May 1556 (CR, 2448, 2447), and to Amerbach, 8 Oct. 1555, 20 Apr., and 4 June 1556 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. 114', n 6 r , u 8 r ) ; Dumoulin to Calvin, 20 Sept. 1555 (CR, 2299), and to Bullinger, 5 Nov. 1555 (Zurich ZB, S. 86, f. 4'); and Baudouin, "Epistola nuncupatoria," 1 Feb. to Friedrich the Elector and another, 7 Mar. 1556, to his son Otto Heinrich, for Constantinus Magnus (Basel, 1556).

82

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

verted to Lutheranism. However the final agreement was made, he packed his belongings sometime during the summer and left for Heidelberg. "Baudouin has ruined himself with his own evil arts" was Calvin's remark to Hotman. Now the way was open for Hotman, and he did not hesitate to take advantage of the situation. With the help of pressure exerted on his behalf by Sturm and Sleidan and after the news that he had received an offer from the Duke of Prussia to come to the University of Konigsberg at a salary of 400 florins (and another 200 in benefits, that is, in food and clothing), he was finally accepted by the scholarchs of Strasbourg. "Hotman has Baudouin's place," Martyr reported to Calvin on 14 July, and a month later Sturm wrote, "We have presented your Hotman to the city."16 Hotman's gratitude was expressed a few weeks later in the dedication of his most recent work to the scholarch Ludwig Gremp von Freudenstein, a distinguished jurist and the magistrate most responsible for Hotman's success. For Hotman, then, it was time to take leave of both his old friends. While Dumoulin was at last beginning to realize the implications of his ultra-Gallican program and so to place his hopes in the idea of a national church, Baudouin moved toward an Erasmian program of religious reconciliation (though apparently quite unable to apply this ideal in his private life). And when these men reappear, it will be as antagonists to the Calvinista causa, as Hotman called it. Only Hotman, it seems, had kept the faith, though without losing hope of building a political foundation for it in France, which at the same time would allow him to resume his proper place in society. Whatever else occupied him for the next six years, he never lost sight of this goal. But Hotman did not emerge from this contest completely unscathed. Calvin himself was not entirely pleased with his « T o Amerbach, 21 June 1556 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. n 8 r ) ; Martyr to Calvin, 14 July, and Hotman to Calvin, 21 June (CR, 2479, 2481); Hotman's dedication to Gremp, 28 July, in Observationum pandectarum c. xx.

83

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S performance and told him so. "From your letter I conclude that you are no more satisfied today than you were when you first lost your temper," he wrote in May. "I wish you would learn to laugh at or to scorn those little troubles which bother you so much, before your sharp temper discredits you among many good men. I say nothing of that sluggard [Baudouin] whose lukewarm attitude you supported until it interfered with your private affair which you pursue so heatedly. But believe me, unless you curb your temper, others will judge your character in a way that will not please you." W h y are you so interested in the matter of salaries? Calvin went on. And what do you care if Baudouin wants someone else to be his successor? "Remember," Calvin concluded, "this advice is given by one who, though he also has an excessive temper, every day, without losing it, endures attacks compared to which your quarrel with Baudouin is child's play."17 Good advice, but Hotman would never take it. Nor in fact was Calvin himself always able to follow it, most notably (as we shall see) where Baudouin was concerned.

STRASBOURG, 24 JUNE

1556

On this day Hotman formally succeeded Baudouin as professor of law in the gymnasium and signed a contract containing much the same terms. 18 He agreed to teach civil law "assiduously and faithfully" for five (for Baudouin it had been six) years, to provide the city council with legal opinions upon request, and not to "burden himself" with legal services for anyone else; and for this he would "content himself" with 160 florins a year, which was a bit less than his salary at Lausanne (with no provision for a possible 17

Calvin to Hotman, 27 May 1556 (CR, 2466). Strasbourg AST, No. 345, f. 286', reproduced in J. Ficker and O. Winckelmann (eds.), Handschriftenproben des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Strasbourg, 1905), I, f. 92, and published in Fournier, IV, 67, along with Baudouin's (see n. 9 above). 18

84

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

raise in three years, as Baudouin's contract had stipulated). One new clause was added, obviously in reaction to the dubious maneuvering of Baudouin: "And because there must be good faith among men of good will, I shall in no way seek another position or withdraw myself during this time, and I promise not to approach any other magistrate before the end of this period of five years." On the whole it was a change for the better. In order to help him live more suitably he was later, like Sturm, given a prebend from the church of St. Thomas, to which the school was attached. He would also have ample time to give to his personal affairs and to run various errands for the Calvinist party. Best of all, he was at last able to devote himself to the teaching of civil law. Although his lessons were still on an elementary level, he had the opportunity to plunge more deeply into what was now beginning to inter­ est him most, the historical investigation of Roman law. To this extent Hotman's intellectual development continued to parallel, and to lag behind, that of Baudouin, who was now busy introducing the doctrines of the historical school of law into the University of Heidelberg. The gymnasium of Strasbourg, located in the Place du Temple Neuf until the nineteenth century, was the most famous and successful of all Protestant schools. Eighteen years earlier it had been founded by Johann Sturm, who had been rector and was now provost, and under the con­ trol of the reformed church of St. Thomas and the schol19 archs of the city it had prospered and grown steadily. By 1546 there were 624 students in 9 classes, enough to support a professorship of law. The school displayed an even more determinedly humanist character than that of Lausanne. This was in accord with the views not only of Johann Sturm, whose pedagogical theories informed the curriculum, but of Jacob Sturm (no relation) the Stettmeister, who lent his 19 Charles Schmidt, La Vie et les travaux de Jean Sturm (Strasbourg, 1855), is essential-, cf. F. Pithon, Strasbourg illustre (Strasbourg, 1855),

Π, 310.

85

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

support to the school both as a disciple of Wimpheling and as a major figure in the city council. This humanist tone was maintained by a series of distinguished teachers, including Sleidan, Martyr, Jerome Zanchi, and for a time Calvin himself. Much careful attention was also given to religious instruction, of course, and for this Calvin's catechism formed the foundation. In general Calvin looked upon the school, as he looked upon that of Lausanne, as a vital outpost of the Genevan church. Refuge and rendezvous of Protestants, center of printing and propaganda, jealous of its traditional liberties, and lying at the crossroads of rival cultures and conflicting confessions, Strasbourg was almost a microcosm of Reformation Europe. The city was at once more cosmopolitan and more independent than Lausanne; its religious character and its political tone were at times positively subversive. Strasbourg had been exempt from the Interim of 1548, but even the hatred of a common Catholic foe failed to create anything like a popular front between the Germans on the one hand and the French and English congregations on the other, not to mention stray sacramentarians and anabaptists. Despite this, Strasbourg intrigued and inspired Hotman as Lausanne and even Paris could not. After the upsetting experiences of the next few years, indeed, it may be doubted that Hotman could ever have returned to the life of a Parisian gentleman-scholar. As Hotman had no doubt come to expect, student life was tumultuous. Sturm struggled to curb the most common forms of disorder—missing classes, drinking, fighting, and "nocturnal ambulations."20 He tried to put a stop to the student practice of taking lodgings in the city without permission from the scholarchs. He also tried to increase the authority of the masters, though with their petty personal rivalries they hardly furnished the best models, Hotman 20

Documents in Fournier, IV, esp. 71-73 (Sturm and ordinance of magistrates, 18 Dec. 1559). 86

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

least of all. And as always there were problems with unmatriculated students and disagreements with the city. Hotman's teaching duties were really not too different from those which he had had at Lausanne. His lectures, given every day at two in the afternoon, were now on Justinian's Institutes instead of Cicero, but they were still on a very elementary level, the level of grammar, dialectic, and ethics. According to the statutes, the duty of the jurisconsult was above all to explicate the meaning of words and the form of the argument and to deduce the principles of law from moral philosophy. This he must do for the Institutes in one year. "He should also . . . relate human law to divine law and seek to instruct his pupils truly with precept and practice" (mit lehr und auch mit Exempel des Lebenns).21 This was a far cry from the position of Baudouin, who gave extraordinary lectures each week for faculty as well as for students, and who received a salary at least twice as large as Hotman's. At Strasbourg Hotman had a large household that was augmented by three cats and a greater number of children. As at Lausanne he admitted a few pensioners who paid an additional fee and who looked to him and to Mme. Hotman for personal guidance as well as for private instruction. For the benefit of Bullinger, who sometimes sent him students, he described a typical tutorial schedule: at six o'clock in the morning the student read the Bible and said his prayers, at seven he studied the law of the Roman republic, and at eight he made translations from Demosthenes; then at one in the afternoon he recited from one of Hotman's own textbooks, and at four he had a lesson in dialectic.22 Since most young men came to Strasbourg to study theology, Hotman never had a large number of students, but he certainly had 21

Fournier, IV, 50; cf. J. F. Hautz, Qeschichte der Universitat Heidelberg (Mannheim, 1862-63), H» 54, 143. 22 To Bullinger, 15 May 1559 (Ep 20). Cf. Andre Bouvier, Henri Bullinger (Zurich, 1940), p. 362.

87

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

a wide variety. He taught French, German, and English boys, and on the student petition compiled for Hotman's benefit in the spring of 1556 there appeared the names of quite a few from Poland and Frisia as well. Among others, the sons of Bullinger, Stuckius, Camerarius, and Sir Thomas Wroth were sent to study with him. This served further to extend Hotman's widening circle of acquaintances. In these years Hotman was very anxious to get on with his career. At Lausanne he had already begun work on the texts of civil law, and like Cujas would collect "observations and emendations" throughout his life. After coming to Strasbourg, as he told Johann Wolf, he had embarked on an examination of the whole Corpus juris civilis. Out of these investigations came many by-products over the next five years, ranging from elementary textbooks to scholarly editions to philological and historical monographs; and he was very busy arranging for their publication.23 He had already published with Sebastian Gryphius in Lyon and the Rihel brothers in Strasbourg, but increasingly he turned to the printers of Basel, whom he had come in contact with through his friend Amerbach. Among the publishers with whom he dealt were Johann Herwagen (the younger) and his son-in-law Bernhard Brandt, Johann Oporinus, Nicolas (the younger) and Eusebius Episcopius. Given his natural impatience, it is not surprising that Hotman's relations with his printers were often troubled. He was forced to make elaborate and not always satisfactory corrections of proof by mail; he complained of delays —"Will my Jurisconsult ever see the light?"—and pressed Amerbach to speed things up; and he was unhappy about financial arrangements. Ideally, he might receive a return "a To Wolf, 20 July 1556 (Zurich SA, F. 39, f. 184'). The letters to Herwagen (early 1556 to 1559), to Oporinus (1557), and to Brandt (1558) are in Basel UB, Fr.Gr.II.27, passim, and to Amerbach mainly in Basel UB, G.II.19· In general, Josef Benzing, Die Buchdrucker des 16. und /7. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden, 1963) on these printers, and P. Bietenholz, Basel and France in the Sixteenth Century (Geneva, 1971). For Hotman's legal work, see below, Ch. VIII. 88

A CONFUSION OF TONGUES of some 340 livres and 50 free copies of a book, but some­ times he ran into difficulties. He fought with Episcopius, for example, over his little dictionary of legal terms. Episcopius refused to pay the 200 crowns called for in the contract be­ cause the pope had placed a ban on books printed in Basel ("Is that my fault?" Hotman asked) and because a compet­ ing book by Barnabe Brisson had appeared first ("Is that my fault?" he repeated).24 Eventually, Amerbach patched up the quarrel, but Hotman shifted most of his business to other firms. Nevertheless, Hotman began to make a name for himself during his time in Strasbourg. He made a number of schol­ arly contacts, the most distinguished probably Jacques Cujas, who in 1558 sent him a copy of his commentary on the sentences of Paulus. Characteristically, Hotman was not much impressed; he had already studied the subject, he told Amerbach. "If God had granted us the time," he added, "we should have published our own observations on Paulus."25 He felt even more scornful, of course, of the no less pioneering legal works of Baudouin which were ap­ pearing contemporaneously, and he continued to speak of plagiarism from his own work as he had done ten years be­ fore. As usual there was more than a little jealousy on Hotman's part, arising in large measure from the fact that he had not yet attained his doctor's degree. This, too, again with Amerbach's help, he set about remedying in these years. After some fussing about the character of the cere­ mony (he wanted it simple as in French universities), he came to Basel, and on 18 September 1558 he was granted 28 this certificate of professional status. 24

To Amerbach, 2 Dec. 1558, 13 Dec. 1559, and 12 Jan. 1560 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. 127^-28% i43r-45r, i46 r ). Cf. H. J. Bremme, Buchdrucker und Buchhandler zur Zeit des Glaubenskampfe (Geneva, 1969), p. 38. " T o Amerbach, 10 May 1558 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 120*). 2β Τ ο Amerbach, 4 Oct., 26 Dec, and two undated letters, all of 1558 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. 122', 129', 130% 249'). Hotman's degree was not taken in December, as Dareste said, but on 18 Sept. 15j8

89

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S But if Hotman relished his new title of "doctor" and if he craved scholarly recognition, he by no means fit the pattern of a conventional academic like Cujas; to this extent he continued to follow the example of Dumoulin or even Baudouin. Both his religious faith and his temperament (which Calvin likewise acutely discerned) prevented him from serving either as a "priest of the muses," as humanists like to think of themselves, or as a "priest of the laws," in Ulpian's phrase. And in any case, events made such indulgence impossible. What Hotman found in civil law was neither the nostalgic pleasure of antiquarian study nor the idealistic devotion to "the art of the good and the just" but rather a treasure of precedents and the means of fashioning arguments for particular causes. His assumption that proving a case was equivalent to establishing the truth—that in a very literal sense "man makes his history"—was reinforced by his dogmatic view of religion. In any case, it was in combining these two deepest instincts, his religious conviction and his penchant for debate, that Hotman found his life's calling. Enlisting his legal skills in behalf of his "Calvinist Cause," he became not only a defender of the faith but a kind of avenging angel. This calling was very direcdy the product of his experiences during these years at Strasbourg. Finally, it is clear that Strasbourg, even more directly than Lausanne, intensified Hotman's awakening political consciousness. Politically the example of the city had been extraordinary ever since it became the leading center of civic resistance in the Empire—although there may be some doubt whether this example signified a deliberate republicanism or a kind of inadvertent anomie arising from its hybrid character and ill-defined legal status. Like many German states, Strasbourg looked to France for support and "a Bonifac. Amerbachio decano ornamentis doctoralibus privatim insignitis est": H. C. Wackernagel (ed.), Die Matrikel der Universitat Basel, II (Basel, 1956), 113. 90

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S encouragement. Almost ten years before, for example, Sturm had been urging Henry II to come to the aid of German "liberty," and now this was indeed French policy. Similar liberal views were expressed by Sleidan, who used his latin translation of Claude de Seyssel's Grand Monarchy of France to attack "tyranny," while in his History of the Reformation, which he was just completing when Hotman came to Strasbourg, he taught more specifically (referring to the Protestant declaration of war against Charles V in 1546) that resistance "against unjust violence" was legitimate.27 With such precedents Hotman's own political views must have fitted in admirably and perhaps have been reinforced. In any case Strasbourg furnished the environment and climate of opinion for Hotman's first essays in what was, in effect if not by intention, revolutionary propaganda.

STRASBOURG, U JANUARY

1557

All of Hotman's demands had been satisfied, yet he was still not content. Except for the fact that the law school was flourishing, nothing pleased him. In some ways, things were worse than they had been at Lausanne. "Discipline is going to pieces," he complained to Bullinger, "the Interim triumphs, and the papists, anabaptists, and sacramentarians are tolerated." 28 Worst of all, he might have added, the deeply rooted antagonism between the French and German religious communities was moving toward open conflict. The Lutherans had never been easy to get along with; after the emergence of an extreme faction under the leadership of Flaccius Illyricus and in Strasbourg of Johann Marbach 27

Sturm to Montmorency, 15 Apr. 1547 (Ribier, II, 3); Sleidan, trans, of Seyssel, Von Ampt der Konige (Leipzig, 1572), "Vorrede . . . an Konig Edwardum in England," and De Statu religionis et republicae ... commentarii (Strasbourg, 1556), f. 250'. Cf. Hotman to Bullinger, 28 Sept. 1557 (Zurich SA, E.II.347, f. 68i r ), and to Calvin, 16 Oct. 1556 (CR, 2546); also Sleidan, Briefwechsel, ed. H. Baumgarten (Strasbourg, 1881), p. 175 (to Martyr, 9 Aug. 1556). 28 CR, 2580, and Ep 9. 91

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

and Melchior Specker, they became intolerable. The repercussions were felt first by Peter Martyr, who finally packed up and left, then by Jerome Zanchi, and finally by Sturm himself. In 1556, with the death of Sleidan and the departure of Martyr for Zurich, the very existence of the Calvinist party was threatened. For the next few years the Lutheran problem was one of coexistence rather than cooperation, and it was to be among Hotman's major preoccupations. At this time Hotman was making his first contacts with another section of the international congregation of the faithful, as Calvin and many others looked upon it. A considerable number of English Protestants, exiles like himself, in flight from the Marian "tyranny," had found refuge in Strasbourg as well as in Geneva, Zurich, and Frankfurt. They did not find it quite as easy as Hotman had to get civic rights, but they were allowed to make use of the church of St. Andre. Among Hotman's new friends were Sir John Cheke, former regius professor of Greek who reportedly taught this subject for a time in Strasbourg and who remained in correspondence with Hotman after his ill-fated trip to Antwerp; Sir Anthony Cooke, former tutor of Edward VI who later moved to Frankfurt; Sir Thomas Wroth, future sheriff of Middlesex who would also remain in correspondence with Hotman; Edmund Grindal, future bishop of London; Sir Edwin Sandys, biblical scholar and future bishop of Worcester who was shortly to join Martyr in Zurich; and Sir Richard Morison, the old Henrician propagandist who would be dead in a few weeks.29 To these may be added in England itself the great Protestant protector Francis Russell, to whom Hotman dedicated one of his books in 1559, and William Cecil, son-in-law of Cooke and brother-in-law of Cheke as well as future principal secretary to Elizabeth. 29 Letters to Calvin, from 25 Mar. 1556 to 29 Mar. 1559 (CR, 2416, 2546, 2598, 2765, 2991, 3032). On these men, see C. H. Garrett, The Marian Exiles (Cambridge, 1938).

92

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

The significance of Hotman's English connections, evi­ denced by only a few letters, may be suggested, if not measured. For one thing Hotman acquired a lively interest in English politics. Later he was able to celebrate the death of that "Jezibel" Mary in 1558 and the accession of Eliza­ beth, for whom he, like the Marian exiles, had the most ex­ travagant hopes. After the return of these exiles to England, Hotman kept up several of his contacts and at various times tried to enlist their aid. He always remained an admir­ er of the English and eventually sent his eldest son Jean to study at Oxford. More intriguing is the possibility that Hotman exchanged political views with some of these men. Both John Ponet and Christopher Goodman, Bishop of Lincoln and Arch­ deacon of Richmond respectively, were members of the Strasbourg colony when they began to consider the ques­ tions of limitations on royal government and political resist­ ance.30 Their situation as well as their ideological point of departure was remarkably similar to that of Hotman at a time, just a few years later, when he began to move into the same dangerous—indeed inadvertently revolutionary—field. Similar too, perhaps, were their later attempts to ac­ commodate themselves to a disconcerting change of fortune (the succession of Elizabeth and Henry IV respectively) which thrust legitimacy upon them. Did this vicarious ex­ perience—the flight from religious tyranny, the discussion of the limits of Christian "obedience," the mistrust of gov­ ernment by women, and the problems of religious com­ promise posed by the Elizabethan settlement—have a sig­ nificant impact upon Hotman's own developing political consciousness? It seems more than likely. In any case Hotman continued to regard his English friends as comrades in arms, and they returned the compliment. 30

A connection has been suggested by W. S. Hudson, John Ponet (ι;ι6?-ι$;6) (Chicago, 1942), p. 196, presenting the text of and a commentary on his Short treatise of politike power (Strasbourg, 1556); cf. Goodman, How superior powers ought to be obeyed (Geneva, 1558).

93

A C O N F U S I O N OF

TONGUES

STRASBOURG, 21 JANUARY

1557

The central concern of Hotman's life was the survival and welfare of "the litde Genevan church, which in France begets many martyrs every day," and now he was starting to do something about its problems. The most obvious source of outside support was Protestant Germany, and since he did not yet have direct contacts with the princes, he applied to Melanchthon, to whom he had introduced himself the year before. Melanchthon had always favored a united Protestant front against the menace of popery. In particular he saw no reason why the Augsburg Confession as formulated by him should not include Calvinists as well as Lutherans. Not that he stood for "toleration" in any individual sense; he had no more use than Calvin or Hotman had for anabaptists or sacramentarians. But he did promote a broadminded policy of coexistence that avoided disputes over nonessentials, or "adiaphora." N o w it is not likely that the Calvinists had (as Baudouin, for example, had) any sympathy with this theory, or rather anti-theory, as such; but they did see Melanchthon as an ally in their struggles against growing Lutheran oppression in Strasbourg as well as the Gallican persecution in France. This is why we find Hotman writing now to Melanchthon, urging him to reaffirm his good will toward the Calvinists. "My hope," he added, "is that we can put an end to this tragedy which keeps the poor Swiss and German churches apart." 31 In Strasbourg, then, in this colony of exiles, transients, misfits, and malcontents, Hotman found himself involved more and more deeply in ecclesiastical politics. Both Sturm and Zanchi praised his services, though at first they were limited to observing and reporting. Soon after Hotman's appointment Calvin himself paid him a visit in Strasbourg and attended one of his classes.32 Even then relations with the 31 Letter to Melanchthon, 21 Jan. 1557 (Breslau, R. 402, No. 238, original in Berlin; see Appendix III below). Cf. letter to Calvin, 17 Feb. 1557 (CR, 2598). 32 Letter to Bullinger, 22 Sept. 1556 (CR, 2539).

94

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

Lutherans were so strained that he was not allowed to preach in the French church. It was precisely to improve the situation that he was making his trip. He was on his way to Frankfurt to reconcile the French and German churches (and perhaps the English as well), and he persuaded Hotman to accompany him and Sturm to this colloquy in Sep­ tember 1556. There Hotman heard some of the theological disputes, especially that over the propositions "Either there is free will or God is a tyrant," on which Calvin held forth for two days against the Germans. But then illness forced him to return early to Strasbourg. Calvin had another reason for attending this Frankfurt assembly, and that was to fix the position of his party for the more important colloquy with the Catholics which would take place the next year. On this meeting Hotman, too, pinned great hopes. The Elector Palatine and the Duke of Wiirttemberg arranged for it to be held in Worms in the summer, and it opened on n September 1557. The repre­ sentatives chosen by the Council of Strasbourg were Sturm and, no doubt in a very junior position, Hotman.33 Here he not only met Melanchthon for the first time but once again encountered Baudouin, who had come as the Elector's rep­ resentative. Although at first prospects seemed bright for the moderate Lutheran position, apparently favored by the princes and certainly the best hope for the Calvinists, there were also ill omens, especially the boycott of the assembly by the Zwinglians of Zurich and Bern. What really spoiled the proceedings, however, was the ultra-Lutheran party, which had no intention of coming to terms with the com­ promisers. While Melanchthon opened the discussion with an attack on the Romanist enemy, Flaccius Illyricus con­ centrated on Melanchthon himself, his weak-kneed "adi33

To Amerbach, 12 June, 26 Sept. 1557, and 6 Jan. 1558 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. 222r, 226% ιΐ9 Γ ); to Bullinger, 13 May and 28 Sept. 1557 (CR, 2626, and Zurich SA, E.II.347, f. 68i r ); to Calvin, 28 May 1557 (CR, 2638). Cf. Baudouin to Cassander, 15 Oct. 1557, in Heinsius (ed.), lllustrium et clarorum virorwn epistolae (Leiden, 1617), p. 138.

95

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S aphorism," and the watered-down version of the Augsburg Confession (that of 1540) which he had to offer. Above all, Flaccius refused to hedge on the eucharist. He wanted to return to what he regarded as pure Lutheran doctrine, and so naturally he would not even consider a rapprochement with the Calvinists. In retrospect the Colloquy of Worms seems to have been a riot of conflicting dogmas and temperaments—or a comedy of misunderstandings. Indeed it was a microcosm of the confessional confusion of the Rhineland at this time. There were the princes, intimidated by doctrinal forces, though by no means neglectful of their political advantage. There was old Melanchthon, now the head of a "party" despite himself, supported by Baudouin and a few others, offering an almost ecumenical plan of reconciliation for a variety of Protestant groups. There were the various Lutheran factions (especially the Flaccians, who were worried less about Rome than about the "Judas' kisses" of Melanchthon) that were to threaten the peace of the Empire and the security of the Calvinists for the rest of Hotman's life. As for the Catholics, led by Peter Canisius, they were unwilling even to discuss theology until the Lutherans could agree among themselves, and that day would not come for another generation. In the midst of such doctrinal pandemonium it is unlikely that the Calvinists were listened to at all, especially since they were no more inclined than the ultra-Lutherans to give way on any significant point. Hotman was never much one to discuss theological issues, but from his letters it seems clear that his aim was conversion, not conciliation; for him, as always, one disputed in order to win. Despite the fiasco at Worms, he continued to press for another such meeting after his return to Strasbourg.3* With Calvin's support he approached the council with a plan for an assembly, this time to be held in Switzerland and to include his Zwinglian 34

96

To Calvin, 29 Nov. 1557 and 19 Feb. 1558 (CR, 2765, 2806).

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

friends. But again Bern and Zurich (including Martyr as well as Bullinger) refused to send representatives, and the plan was dropped. Meanwhile the conflicts in Strasbourg were growing as the French church became more and more suspect. "Does Calvin know that people call him Pope and say that he cares for no church but that of Geneva?" asked Hotman.35 The ultra-Lutherans, or "miso-Phillipists," led by Superintend­ ent Marbach, had always been opposed to the appointments of Martyr and Zanchi. After forcing Martyr to leave, they concentrated upon Zanchi, who as first professor of theol­ ogy was particularly vulnerable. In 1557 Marbach accused him of corrupting doctrine and four years later complained to the chapter of St. Thomas, which forbade him to discuss the eucharist in his lectures. This was indeed a case of aca­ demic freedom. Zanchi refused to continue his courses until he was guaranteed "the liberty to teach" according to "the Bible alone." The controversy, which was bound up with the general intramural debates of Protestantism of this time, dragged on for several years, and Hotman tried to keep his friends in Switzerland posted about this. At first Zanchi wanted to leave but then was persuaded by colleagues to stay. "I have urged Zanchi to peace as far as I could, and he has given in to my advice," Hotman told Amerbach. "If only our trouble-makers here would as easily devote themselves to the pacification of Christendom."36 But they did not. As a result of the concordat of 1563 Zanchi had to sign the Augsburg Confession, and only then was he permitted to teach again. By that ignominious time, of course, Hotman was long gone. 35

To Calvin, 27 July 1558 (CR, 2923). On the Zanchi affair, see letters to Calvin 28 May 1557, 19 Feb. and 28 June 1558 (CR, 2638, 2806, 2902); Zanchi to Beza, 5 Feb. 1562 (Beza, 235); also Schmidt, Jean Sturm, pp. ιιηή, Ν. Paulus, Die Strassburger Reformatoren und die Geivissensfreiheit (Strasbourg, 1895), and W. Sohm, Die Schule Johann Sturms und die Kirche Strassburgs (Munich, 1912). 36 T o Amerbach, 28 Aug. 1557 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 224').

97

A C O N F U S I O N OF T O N G U E S

Zanchi was obviously a scapegoat; the real target was the Calvinist party, together with the Phillipists, at Strasbourg. Much of the campaign had been carried on by Marbach's followers. Melchior Specker, the ultra-Lutheran preacher of St. Thomas, for example, threatened to publish a book on predestination against Beza, and it was only with difficulty that Sturm and Hotman dissuaded him. In 1560 Marbach had a pamphlet by Tilleman Hesse printed which had unkind things to say about the Calvinists as well as Melanchthon, and Sturm and Zanchi somehow managed to obtain a ban on its sale. Sturm, too, came in for criticism and in the fall of 1561 was forced to submit a confession of faith, explaining in particular his views on the eucharist. Like Zanchi he prepared to leave Strasbourg and then decided, after all, to stay and take his Lutheran medicine. He even kept his faith in colloquies. For Hotman, and for many other members of his generation, it was quite otherwise. In their view the time for talk was ending, and the time for compromise would never come, at least not in his lifetime. Hotman himself was more interested in the progress of the faith in France and in Germany than in cooperating with minority groups and restoring stability in any general sense. He never ceased being Calvin's agent. Yet he was often more intransigent and blinder to consequences than Calvin. He could not help looking at things with a lawyer's eye, he was less afraid to disturb the existing balance of forces, and most important his emotional (and economic) orientation was still toward Paris rather than Geneva. It was because of these as yet inarticulated differences of view that Hotman was beginning, a decade after his conversion, to emerge from the tutelage of his spiritual father. And one of the consequences of this, once again, was a signal act of rebellion.

98

V. T H E T I M E OF THE T I G E R STRASBOURG,1558-1561 "If Caesar was killed trying to gain the sceptre justly, can we permit you to live, who pretend to it unjustly?" Hotman on the Cardinal of Lorraine STRASBOURG, 7 MARCH

1558

upon the growing "tyranny" in Europe and the disunity among "those of the religion," Hotman could not help feeling that the outlook was bleak.1 As the war between France and England drew to a close and as hopes for reconciliation between Calvinists and Lutherans faded, official persecution was increasing at an alarming rate. In all of this, Hotman confided to Bullinger, he could plainly see the malign influence of the Cardinal of Lorraine. A few months younger than Hotman himself, this "tiger of France," as Hotman would dub him two years later, was the most powerful ecclesiastical prince in France and, together with his brother, Francis Duke of Guise, was coming to dominate the Catholic party and even the court. As Bishop of Metz and a prince of Lorraine he also posed a direct threat to Strasbourg itself. REFLECTING

On the brighter side Hotman could celebrate the growing strength of Calvinism in France. At this time, too, he was in close touch with his family. He had brought two of his brothers over to Christ, or so he thought; he was trying to entice one to Lausanne; and he was still hoping to convert his mother. He was also happy to note that the faith was making headway in the legal profession. According to an anecdote which Hotman had heard over a year before, the Sorbonne was so disturbed about this that it asked per1

Letter to Bullinger (CR, 2827; Ep 13).

99

THE TIME OF THE TIGER

mission from the King to take over the campaign for suppression of heresy on the grounds that the Parlement itself was too infected.2 "What do you expect of me?" Henry II had asked. "Shall I put you in the Parlement's place and give the government up to you?" Yet the King, too, was disturbed at the rising tide of heresy, which was being received into the households of some of the leading families of France; and in fact it was partly in order to deal more effectively with this threat that he pressed for an early end to the war with Spain and England. The last stages of this struggle Hotman followed with some interest but little or no national enthusiasm; not even the capture of Calais moved him. His only concern was for the Protestants who might suffer during the fighting in Normandy. The terrible thing was that they had less to fear from the English than from their own King, and Hotman knew it. "May God have mercy on His people," he prayed. What was most ominous to Hotman at this point was the new tendency which he detected in the recent letters of the King regarding religion. In the edict of Compeigne (27 July 1557), which prescribed the death penalty and confiscation of property for heretics, the target was no longer the "Lutherans"; now it was defined more carefully as Calvinists, Zwinglians, and sacramentarians. This Hotman regarded as a treacherous and transparent attempt, probably inspired by the Cardinal, to drive another wedge between the already-feuding French and German Protestants. Not that Hotman had much cause to be surprised. After all, Henry II had been posing as "protector of German liberties" for almost six years, and now he was simply acting to justify his precarious policy of persecuting Protestants at home while allying himself with them in Germany. In any case it was a blow to the Calvinists, who feared that the German princes, 2 To Bullinger, 15 Aug. 1556 (Ep 7); to Amerbach, 28 Aug. 1557 and 1 Dec. 1558 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. 224', 127'). Isambert, XIII, 494·

100

THE TIME OF THE TIGER

to whom they had always looked for aid and comfort, would no longer find it in their interest to provide support. That this was precisely the Cardinal's purpose seemed to be borne out by another story recently told to Hotman. A few weeks before, there had been serious disorders in his old neighborhood in the Rue St.-Jacques, and a number of French Protestants had been arrested, including his friend Francois Bude and certain "Lutherans" from his old College du Plessis.8 To those imprisoned Calvin himself had sent a message of condolence, and under his urging several German princes had been persuaded to dispatch a representative to enter a plea on their behalf. But the Cardinal's reply had been that, since Lutherans were exempt, it was hardly worthwhile to worry about purely French troublemakers. It was this strategy and not any desire for peace, Hotman was convinced, that lay at the roots of the Cardinal's growing broad-mindedness about theological questions. The tragedy was that the Calvinists could not afford to be so liberal in religious matters. Rigidity was the source not only of their morale and discipline but, to a large degree, of their coherence as a movement. Yet they did not abandon their habit of seeking help from their feuding doctrinal cousins in Germany. In 1557, when a campaign of persecution threatened Calvin's Vaudois followers, he had sent Beza and Farel on such a mission to Heidelberg and Stuttgart to approach the Elector Palatine and the Duke of Wurttemberg.* On the way they had stopped at Strasbourg to confer with the council, and they had also enjoyed a pleasant reunion with Hotman, who took them to dinner with Marbach. They talked about the coming Colloquy of Worms as well as the Waldensian problem, apparendy in agreement, and then went on their way. 8 Jehan de la Fosse, Journal d'un cure ligueur de Paris, ed. Barthelemy (Paris, 1866), p. 35; Calvin to prisoners of Paris, September 1557 (CR, 2716). 4 To Bullinger, 13 May 1557 (CR, 2626; Ep 10).

101

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R This particular expedition turned out to be successful, but that was before the unfortunate scene at Worms. The next year, after the affair of the Rue St.-Jacques, their attempts were less fortunate. This time Beza came to Strasbourg with Hotman's brother-in-law Guillaume Prevost (who had married another of the Aubelin daughters), and Hotman himself accompanied them as far as Baden-Baden.5 The German princes agreed to send another envoy; the Council of Strasbourg helped by appealing to Philip of Hesse. But Henry II, whose position had now hardened, turned down the request, and the French Protestants were left to their fate. From this time on Lutheran intervention, at least on the legal and diplomatic level, ceased to be effective for the Calvinist party. It was precisely the failure of this mission, coupled with the refusal of his Zwinglian friends to support another colloquy, that depressed Hotman and aroused his suspicions about the Cardinal of Lorraine.

STRASBOURG, FEBRUARY

1559

In some ways Hotman was proving a good prophet. Persecutions were indeed becoming worse. Now they had struck much closer to home for him, and once again the "tiger" seemed to blame. The nearby city of Metz, after its capture six years before, had been placed under the Cardinal's "perpetual jurisdiction." During the siege of the city, the Protestants had been forced to take refuge in Strasbourg. Afterwards they returned and even prospered under the tolerant administration of the governor Vieilleville, but their position was precarious. Like the Jews, as one hostile seventeenth-century historian lamented, they were guilty of "monstrous multiplication" and were even less welcome. At this time, he added, the "pretended reformers" had cast off the wolfs skin of Luther and had donned the fox' coat of 5

To Calvin, 1 Mar., and to Bullinger, 7 Mar. 1558 (CR, 2820, 2827); cf. Beza to Calvin, June 1558 (Beza, 140).

102

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R 6

Calvin, who was an even more feared incendiary. In Sep­ tember 1558 the policy of toleration came to an end. Mar­ riage and burial privileges were denied to Protestants. The next step was frightening to contemplate. It was then that Hotman, in the company of Sturm, made still another trip to Germany. Calvin had sent condolences as usual to his congregation in Metz and then this new mis­ sion, which seemed particularly timely since just the month before the new Elector Palatine, Frederick III, had been converted to the Genevan confession. At first this effort seemed promising. The Diet of Augsburg, which met in March, decided to send an ambassador. Unfortunately, Henry II was dead before he arrived, and all he could do was to offer his sympathies and to return. A second mission followed in the fall but also without result. By this time the real crisis was in Paris. Legislation against heresy was reaching a crescendo, and a ban was placed on all books from Geneva. By the time the first na­ tional synod of the French reformed church was assembling in May, royal policy was turning from repression to the "extirpation of this accursed sect," as Dumoulin's old nemesis the Cardinal of Tournon put the matter to the King, and in June an edict was issued to this effect. A few weeks later Hotman complained bitterly to a German friend about the recent "unbelievable persecutions" in Paris referring in particular to the Mercuriale held in June, when his old colleague Anne du Bourg and other members of the Parlement were arrested and charged with heresy. "Of this Parisian Mercuriale," Hotman added, "I am sending you a full account." 7 Henry II had vowed that he would per6

Meurisse, Histoire de la naissance, du progres, et de la decadence de Vheresie dans la ville de Metz (Metz, 1642), p. 128; Calvin to church of Metz, 10 Sept. 1558 (CR, 2995). Cf. G. Zeller, La Reunion de Metz a la France (Paris, 1926), II, 55. 7 To Count Eberhard von Erbach, 8 July 1559 (Geneva BPU, with­ out shelf-mark). Cardinal of Tournon to King, 9 July 1559 (Ribier, II, 806); documents on Du Bourg in MC, I, 2i7ff; Crespin, II, (η$5; and HE. 103

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R

sonally watch these miscreants burn. The trial dragged on for months, followed anxiously by all Protestants. Hotman did not overestimate the significance of the affair; it was in truth a cause more celebre than that of the martyrs of Lyon. At the very moment Hotman was writing this letter (8 July), though he could not yet know of it, Henry was on his deathbed, the victim of Montgomery's lance, and indeed had but two days of life in him. To all good Calvinists his death was providential, but their elation was short-lived. The control asserted by the Guises over the person of the young King Francis II, their emergence to a position of unrivaled authority, and the inexplicable lethargy of the King of Navarre all acted to dash their hopes. Hotman was bitterly disappointed and for a time considered accepting a chair at the University of Marburg offered him by Philip of Hesse.8 But he stayed and came increasingly to focus his resentment upon the Cardinal of Lorraine, who was not only on the road to becoming papa e re, as one observer put it, but the major obstacle to Hotman's long dreamed-of return to France. Hotman blamed the Cardinal, too, for the crisis in Metz, which burst out in October. In shocked tones he reported to Calvin how, by royal order, 400 families had been expelled and were seeking asylum in Strasbourg. He wrote also to Melanchthon about the calumnies accompanying this atrocity and about the attempts to discredit his party before the imperial princes. "Nor can I see an end to or a remedy for this evil unless it is checked by your authority, which is what we beg of you."9 Calvin sent his sympathies to those involved in the disaster, which one modern historian has compared to the revocation of the edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. Again there were attempts to appeal to the young king, including an embassy from the Emperor himself, but to no avail. 8

T o Bullinger, 23 Nov. 1559 (CR, 3137; Ep 23). To Melanchthon, 1 Jan. 1559 (Paris BSG, 1458, f. 56'; see Appendix III below). 9

104

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R

Du Bourg's case, too, was hopeless. With the intercession of Beza, he had been offered a professorship of law at the University of Heidelberg by the Elector Frederick (which would have made him Baudouin's rival).10 But then an event intervened which precipitated the decision of the king, or rather of Catherine de Medicis and the Guises, to carry out the will of the late Henry II. On the night of 18 December one of Du Bourg's judges, the president Minard, was murdered; five days later, after a deeply moving and widely publicized speech given to the large crowd gathered at the Place de Greve, Du Bourg was strangled and then burned. In him French Protestants found their greatest martyr up to that time, and in fact many would date the beginning of the wars of religion from his death. There were other executions as well, and two months later Charles IX broke off negotiations over the Metz affair. It was just at this time that he left for his castle of Amboise and the fatal encounter with the conspiring malcontents who, like Hotman, had given up the idea of trying to apply diplomacy or persuasion. The way of the fox was not working; they would try the way of the lion—or rather of the tiger. And Hotman wholeheartedly approved of this decision to resort to violence. STRASBOURG, 19 SEPTEMBER 1559

Hotman had already turned from the way of diplomacy and colloquy to active resistance. Somehow he had become involved in a rather bizarre and presumably treasonable scheme to strike at the heart of the Guise tyranny by attacking the "tiger's" stronghold in Metz and restoring it to Germany, which is to say to Protestantism. He dared not put too many details in writing, he told Calvin, but he begged that his old friends Beza and Villemongis be sent to Strasbourg to confer with him and Sturm and no doubt to share 10

Kluckholm, I, 90.

105

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R 11

the responsibility. He was happy to report that he had at­ tracted the most powerful support. Through the young pas­ tor Francois de Morel he had been in contact with the Calvinist church in Paris and, he hoped, a certain "Eubulus," a reference probably to Villemongis' neighbor, the Admiral Coligny. Queen Elizabeth, too, had been won over. Wheth­ er or not she knew the substance of the plan, she had at least contributed 200 crowns, no doubt as an investment in the defense of Scotland, which the Guises, through their niece Mary, also had designs as well as claims upon. At least two of Elizabeth's continental agents were openly sympa­ thetic to the Calvinist party: the ambassador to France, Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, who had been (by coincidence?) inspecting the fortifications of Metz less than three weeks before, and Christopher Mundt, whom Hotman saw much of in Strasbourg. As usual Hotman hoped to get some sup­ port from Germany, perhaps through Hubert Languet, who at that time was passing through Strasbourg. This is the last we hear directly of Hotman's mysterious and madcap scheme, although he continued to press Calvin for his views on the matter. Within three weeks Beza came and conferred with Hotman and Sturm about the project but apparently came to no definite conclusion. 12 Gremp was 11

CR, 3118; also Sturm to Calvin, 19 Sept., and Hotman to Calvin, 14 Nov. 1559, and Morel to Calvin, 15 and 23 August 1559 (CR, 3117, 3132, 3096, 3103). Cf. Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 7 Oct. 1559 (CSP, For., Eliz., 50, 1), and L. Paris (ed.), Negotiations, lettres et pieces divers relatives au regne de Francois II (Paris, 1841), pp. 367, 495. 12 Hotman's involvement can be inferred especially from Sturm's hostile letter of May 1561 (Strasbourg AST, Corresp. Sturm, No. 163, ff. 63^69% a modern copy of the original which was destroyed by fire in 1570 but published by Dareste in 1854 in Bibliotheque de I'Ecole des Chartes, V, 3ε ser., 360-75; also in CR, 3406) and from Baudouin's Religionis et regis . . . defensio (see Ch. VI, n. 20 below); also Sturm to King of Denmark, 15 Apr. 1560 (CR, 3181). Essential for documentation are Henri Naef, La Conjuration d'Amboise et Geneve (Geneva, 1922); fuller on the French side though less critical, Lucien Romier, La Conjuration d'Amboise (Paris, 1923), to be cor­ rected by N. Sutherland, "Queen Elizabeth and the Conspiracy of 106

THE TIME OF THE TIGER

dispatched to the Duke of Wiirttemberg in Tubingen, while Beza went to Heidelberg to see the newly converted Calvinist, the Elector Friedrich, but all that resulted was the belated offer to Anne du Bourg for a teaching position. Calvin, who was apparently not kept very well informed, was skeptical about the whole thing, and perhaps it was largely a creature of Hotman's imagination. In any case, on 5 October, the very day Beza left Geneva for Strasbourg, the King ordered the expulsion of the Calvinist families from Metz, and the moment passed for whatever Hotman had in mind. Or had it passed? It is quite possible that Hotman's plan was not so much dropped as submerged in a grander scheme, for by this time something much bigger was certainly brewing. This was the conspiracy, or rather network of conspiracies, which was to stir the countryside, to involve much of the nobility and many towns, and six months later to culminate in the famous uprising at Amboise. Whether Calvin knew it or not (Beza most likely did), Hotman was in this conspiracy up to his neck, if not over his head. In the longest view the conspiracy of Amboise grew out of the power struggle between the house of Guise, with its vast quasi-feudal clientele and control over the ecclesiastical establishment of France, and the families of Bourbon and Chatillon, with their dependencies, towns as well as nobles, and their increasing involvement with the congregations of the reformed religion. It was triggered by Henry II's accidental death and the sudden disruption of the balance of forces caused by the Guise's assumption of control over the fourteen-year-old heir Francis II. For the next generation this bitter rivalry would be a political fact of life. While Henry lay dying there was already talk of open conflict; after his death this seemed a certainty. Everyone Amboise," English Historical Review, LXXXI (1966), 474-89, and "Calvinism and the Conspiracy of Amboise," History, XLVII (1962), 111-38; and A. de Ruble, Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne (PAlbret, II (Paris, 1882). 107

THE TIME OF THE TIGER supposed that Antoine de Bourbon, the King of Navarre, would act to redress the balance and to protect his own position and that of his followers, including, at least potentially, Hotman. This seemed all the more likely in view of the fact that he had not hidden his Protestant sympathies and had gone so far as to take part in a public demonstration of faith in the Pre-aux-clercs the year before. Yet in this expectation, as Hotman wrote at the beginning of September, "the King of Navarre has miserably disappointed us."13 He was lured, if not frightened, away from the court, leaving his followers in the greatest confusion. The Prince of Conde, next in line to the leadership, was embarrassed; Calvin, who had expected great things from him, was appalled; and Hotman, to judge from his actions, was desperate. The movement itself, however, was still there. Although underground and uncoordinated, it attracted many princes and notables of the kingdom. With the King of Navarre off on a mission to Spain, the Prince of Conde prevented from being more than a "tacit chief," and Calvin unwilling to discredit himself further in the eyes of European rulers (or to endanger his followers in France), the movement may have resembled a headless monster, but menacing it was nonetheless. Hotman never doubted the support either of Calvin or of Conde, whom indeed he hoped would come out into the open. All that was needed was someone to take over active direction of the available forces and, as secretly as possible, to bring them together. Such a leader appeared in the person of a resentful and reckless aristocrat, Jean du Barry, Sieur de la Renaudie, who was an exile like Hotman and had come to Geneva a year or more earlier than he. Obviously they had a common purpose. The difference was that La Renaudie had fled France to escape prosecution for a perjury charge rather than to embrace true religion. The man chiefly responsible for his situation was Jean du Tillet, who would soon be en13

108

To Calvin, 14 Nov. 1559 (CR, 3132).

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R

listed by the Guises to defend their position. Ideologically, as many Calvinists later admitted, La Renaudie left something to be desired. But for Hotman, at least for the moment, it was enough that they shared an obsessive hatred of the Guises and a desire to recover their property and their influence. Such was that union of Huguenots and Malcontents (soon the word would be Politiques) noticed by the Venetian ambassador and other contemporaries. The story must be pieced together with the help of a certain amount of conjecture, and still there are gaps, especially where Hotman is concerned. In July La Renaudie had begun a discreet and somewhat obscure tour of the provinces in order to contact other dissidents and to organize a coup d'etat aimed at the Guise "usurpation." By September he had come to Geneva, and although he did not make a good impression on Calvin, he did add considerably to his following. To many other emigres—including his neighbor in the territory of Bern, Villemongis, Hotman's brother-in-law Guillaume Prevost, and Hotman—La Renaudie seemed to be a liberator. Unfortunately there was little financial support, though Elizabeth still held out hope, and very uncertain lines of communication. On the whole the movement was broader than it was deep. It seems likely, too, that the movement stemmed more from politics than from Protestantism—that it showed, as contemporary historians put it, "plus de malcontentement que de Huguenoterie."14 Yet the widespread support for the coup as well as the events of the next few years show that these two forces were inseparable. So, even more clearly, does the particular, but not untypical, case of Hotman. As an exile deprived of his patrimony, as a member of an expatriated social group, he was certainly a Malcontent and perforce bound to Conde, if not to Bourbon. But this detracted in no way from his allegiance to the Genevan 14 Journal of Pierre Bruslart, in MC, I, 8; repeated by De Serres, De Thou, Brantome; cf. Alberi, I, 4, 131.

109

T H E TIME OF THE TIGER

church. If Calvin personally could not afford to risk his community by supporting a national uprising and was dubious anyway about the chances of the conspiracy, he was by no means unsympathetic, despite his retrospective disclaimers; and to judge from his actions as well as from the famous penultimate paragraph of the Institution, it is even doubtful that he objected on principle, at least so long as there was evidence of support from the princes of the blood. Beza was even more positively attracted to the movement and indeed, though he later tried to disassociate himself, deeply involved in it. If there was a division of interest between the Malcontents and the Calvinists, then, it was more strategic than ideological. Hotman certainly had no qualms about the project, either before or afterward. His resolution was only stiffened by the fate of Du Bourg and of the Protestants of Metz and by the noticeable increase of emigration. By the end of 1559, it may be concluded, Hotman was already committed emotionally to resistance. STRASBOURG, 26 FEBRUARY

1560

All France was on the verge of an uprising, Hotman told Calvin.15 Armed men were gathering, and there were outbreaks of idol-smashing. The plot had indeed come to a head during this month, when La Renaudie called a meeting, significantly, in that old center of resistance, Merindole. The plan was, while making the scope of operations as wide as possible, to concentrate on attacking the Guise at Amboise and "rescuing" the person of the King. At the same time the strictest secrecy was to be maintained. The date set for the strike was 6 March, and just beforehand "La Forest," as La Renaudie was now calling himself, reported to Conde personally. Everything seemed ready. 15

Hotman to Calvin; cf. Sturm to Calvin, both 26 Feb. 1560 (CR, 3165, 3166). 110

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R Meanwhile Hotman was backing La Renaudie by trying to drum up support in Germany. T w o days before the attack was to begin, he and Sturm went to Heidelberg, where they conferred with the Elector Palatine and one of his counselors, Wilhelm von Grumbach, and the Count of Oldenberg. Hotman was pretending to be a representative of Conde himself, but once again he was unable to convince even his friends. All he received for his troubles was a letter from the Elector to Conde, and with this he returned to Strasbourg. Alas, it was already too late, and Hotman's discouragement turned to shock when he learned that the whole quixotic plan had backfired. The date agreed upon had been delayed a few days in order to allow stragglers to make the rendezvous in Nantes. But whatever secrecy the conspirators had enjoyed was long gone. The Guises had been alerted by reports from Germany and the Netherlands, and these were confirmed by more precise information given by a Parisian lawyer, one of the "timid" Calvinists who had actually seen "La Forest." Many of the plotters seemed to have had only the vaguest notion of what they were doing around Amboise except for their ill-defined resentment against the Guises, or in some cases a simple promise of payment. The troops ranged from crusading types to mercenaries; in short, there was a complete absence of organization. N o wonder the conspiracy was a fiasco. Between io and 14 March a number of prisoners were taken and interrogated, and all initiative was lost by the time La Renaudie's gentlemen began their assault. The only significant result of the attack of the night of 17 March was to cut short the conciliatory policy of the government suggested in the edict of Amboise, which eleven days before had been hastily registered by the Parlement in an attempt to forestall trouble. Instead of the amnesty promised by this model edict there followed swift and indiscriminate retribution. The next day "La Renaudie, called 111

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R

La Forest, chief of the rebels," was himself killed and so escaped the public penalty paid by the other ringleaders. Some of them were hanged from the parapets of the castle of Amboise, others were decapitated, their bodies thrown into the Loire in sacks. The most memorable scene, preserved in a well-known contemporary engraving, involved one of Hotman's closest friends and was probably first described by Hotman him­ self.18 The Sieur de Villemongis, whose estate later passed into the hands of Voltaire, was about to be executed. "Hav­ ing dipped his hands in the blood of his beheaded com­ panions, he lifted them as high as possible to the heavens and cried, 'Here is the blood of your children, Ο Lord; for this You shall be avenged!' " This was a memory to be treasured in the revolutionary tradition which Hotman was helping to found, for in Ville­ mongis and his comrades the Huguenots had their first truly political martyrs. Coligny himself saw to it that Ville­ mongis' family was taken care of, while Hotman did his best to see that his friend's oath was kept. He would carry on the fight, but the weapons, needless to say, would be of his own choosing. Though busy with other scholarly work, Hotman launched a major campaign against the Cardinal, whose anger now was equaled only by his fear during the uprising. The big­ gest salvo was the notorious Tiger of France, which appeared early in the summer. Unfortunately, but not untypically, someone else paid for Hotman's audacity. While investigating a murder, as the Venetian ambassador reported, the Parisian police entered a house and, apparent­ ly by accident, came across a man who had printed certain writings against the Cardinal and the Duke of Guise and 18

The earliest contemporary account, attributed by Naef to Hotman, is La Tumulte d'Amboise (Paris, 1560), also in MC, Ι, 320ΓΙ; and a Latin version of the same date; cf. Hotman's Vita Colinii, p. 33. Besides the standard accounts of La Place, De Serres, etc., cf. the reports of Michiel, 16-31 Mar. (CSP, Ven., VII, 132-45). 112

THE TIME OF THE TIGER

had posted them around the city. The man arrested was Hotman's printer Martin L'Hommet, and a month later he was executed in Hotman's old neighborhood, the Place Maubert." Practically every copy of the book was destroyed. One copy survived in Paris to be reprinted in the nineteenth century; at least one made its way to Switzerland, and another to Strasbourg. Yet it was enough to insure a certain notoriety to Hotman even if he had never written another word. The episode itself provoked a remarkable amount of interest in the mid-nineteenth century, and one enthusiast regarded it as one of the first significant episodes in the history of the "freedom of the press." STRASBOURG, JUNE

1560

"Mad tiger, poisonous snake, pit of abominations, spectacle of evil fortune!" This is only the beginning of Hotman's pyrotechnical attack on the Cardinal of Lorraine, who represented both the focus of his frustration over the disaster of Amboise and the emotional center for his fast-developing political views. Hotman's Tiger of France was not only the most spectacular polemic produced by the first major clash between Catholics and Huguenots (as they were now being called), it was the J'accuse of the religious wars in France. It was also the culmination of a propaganda campaign which, though its main purpose was to justify, or rather to exculpate, the conspirators of Amboise (who were still being pursued), seized upon the deeper issues of politics and religion dividing French society. Yet far from being revolutionary in intent, this pamphlet asserted that the real "rebels" were not "those of the religion" but rather "those of the Guises." As Calvin claimed 17 The story is told by Charles Reade in the introduction to his facsimile reproduction of Le Tigre de i$6o (Paris, 1875); cf. La Fosse, Journal, p. 38, and Michiel, 30 June 1560 (CSP, Ven., VII, 234). Cf. Ch. Nodier, "De la liberte de la presse avant Louis XIV . . . ," one of many offprints in Reade's papers (Paris BPF, Vol. 816, Part 4). 113

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R to be the restorer and protector of the true religion, so his French followers, the Malcontents, claimed to be the defenders of the true principles of the French monarchy. Hotman's conservative posture was dictated not so much by temperament as by the political conventions of this age, which demanded that all change be introduced in the form of restoration. Just as the only true church was the "primitive church," so the only good law was old law. Yet backward-looking as it may appear, such an assumption is quite compatible with the most extreme sort of radicalism. "Woe to the land whose king is a child!" The writings and events of the past year in France may be regarded as a kind of gloss on this biblical text. When Henry II died on 10 July 1559, the basic constitutional question had already been posed: how, and by whom, was the government to be run during the minority of Francis II? Underlying this, of course, was the tacit but more explosive question: which of the contending factions, centering on the Guise and Bourbon families, was to predominate? The Guises had ready answers to both questions. T o the first they responded by denying, on the basis of French custom and a famous fourteenth-century ordinance, that the fourteen-year-old King was legally a minor (and so rejecting the civil law age limit of twenty-five). The second they answered simply by taking possession of the first and more human of "the king's two bodies." This fait accompli provoked a third and still more delicate question: was the government of the Guises, at best de facto and at worst usurped, in any sense legitimate? And if not, finally, what could be done about it? Or more realistically, how could one go about justifying what surely would be done? Such were the questions that Calvin had to face, for example from the young Parisian pastor Antoine de la Roche Chandieu, who came as early as September 1559 to discuss the conspiracy. "We are often asked," Beza admitted to Bullinger that same month, "whether it is permitted to rise up against those who are enemies not only of religion but also 114

THE TIME OF THE TIGER of the realm." From Geneva, as we have seen, no clear answers were forthcoming, at least, publicly. Calvin could not on principle justify active resistance, and yet he did not want to alienate his French disciples. Such questions were also put by the conspirators, and perhaps more appropriately, to certain legal experts; and their answers were more favorable to the Malcontents, though at first they were not widely broadcast. It was in response to such inquiries, most probably, that Hotman became involved in the treacherous field of political resistance, in theory as well as in practice. At last he could serve his party through his professional talents. Hotman's title should not have been "master of requests" (an honor later bestowed on him by the Bourbons), Baudouin later remarked, but rather "master of libels." And certainly he played a major, perhaps a controlling, part in producing the propaganda surrounding the conspiracy of Amboise. Unfortunately, just which of the "many books and pamphlets" reported by La Place or preserved in the Memoires de Conde should be attributed to him is not and never will be entirely clear. In historical terms this does not particularly matter; in the preparation of technical briefs or general publicity the particular member of the firm assembling the arguments is of no great moment. The significant thing is that these pamphlets all kept close to the line adopted by his party. They all made the lawyer's distinction between the "religious question" and the "civil question," they denied that they were defending either a sect or a faction, they insisted upon the absolute legitimacy of their cause, and they were uniformly hostile to the Guises. Some also suggested calling the Estates General. It will not be unjust to assign responsibility, if not always authorship, to Hotman for a large share of this propaganda. The earliest of these pamphlets, perhaps carried by the conspirators on the very day of the coup, was the Estats de 18

18 Beza to Bullinger, 12 Sept. 1559 (Beza, 150); cf. Morel to Calvin, 15 Aug. 1559 (CR, 3096).

115

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R

France opprimez par la tyrannie de Guise.19 Addressed to the victimized King, it was aimed at the illegitimate—and expensive—government of the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of Lorraine, who betrayed their foreign origin as well as their treasonable and kingly ambitions by claiming to be descended directly from Charlemagne. It was to emphasize their allegiance to the legitimate dynasty sired by Hugues Capet, indeed, that the "Huguenots" devised a new etymology for their party label. The other pamphlets appeared after the conspiracy and were designed mainly to prevent or at least to moderate retribution, though they cannot have contributed much to this humanitarian cause. Among these was a certain "Livret de Strasbourg," probably Hotman's composition, which Beza himself helped to distribute, and two replies to a letter of the King to the Parlement, dated the last of March and ascribed to the Cardinal of Lorraine, which condemned the "rebels" and renewed the attack on heresy.20 The more substantial of these, a Response chrestienne et defensive, is a comprehensive statement of the Malcontents' program in the form of a gloss on the royal letter. No one denies, it begins, that the secular sword belongs exclusively to the prince or to the royal council acting on his behalf, or that resistance to this authority is blasphemous as well as illegal. But when a government has been usurped, when it oppresses "true religion" and banishes its good subjects, resistance was not only permitted, it was commanded. The men of Amboise had no desire for revolution, for a changement de leur estat, nor was their faith in any sense a "new doctrine." On the contrary, they were men of good family and good faith seeking justice and their rights.21 19

MC, I, 405. Geneva AE, Proces criminals, it ser., 1215, ff. 9T-ioT; cf. Naef, La conjuration d'Amboise et Geneve, pp. 322-63, arguing that Hotman was personally responsible for much of this propaganda. The anonymous work of October 1559 (referred to by De Thou and accepted by Romier) is a ghost, exorcised by Naef (p. 332). 21 MC, I, 360. 20

116

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R

The counterpropaganda commissioned by the Guises was necessarily less original and less theoretical, for they had little interest in stirring up large constitutional issues. They wanted to discredit the Huguenots by charging them with attempted murder (both of the King, which was not true, and of themselves, which may have been true) as well as sedition and heresy. This was the intention, too, of the pronouncements by the government, including both the Parlement of Paris and the King, against all "seditious and schismatic assemblies." Aside from these the most effective pieces of progaganda came from the pen of Jean du Tillet, Greffier Civil of the Parlement, who had been on the side of the reformers during the Gallican crisis of 1551 but who was now working for—or who, as Huguenots preferred to say, had sold his pen to—the Guises. What may have given Du Tillet's writing a particularly sharp edge is the fact that he had been a personal enemy of La Renaudie. In fact, it was the lawsuit between these two families over a disputed benefice that had sent La Renaudie into exile in the first place—ironic commentary on this, the opening salvo of a generation of religious strife. In the present debate Du Tillet argued four la majorite du rot treschrestien.22 In this learned brief he tried to defend the established government in terms hardly different from those of the "rebels" whom he reprimanded. Like them he appealed to the most ancient traditions of the French monarchy, referring in particular to customary law and to historical precedent, especially as preserved in the registers of the Parlement, of which he happened to be chief curator. He rejected the notion that the Estates Gen22

Pour la majorite du rot treschrestien contre les escrits des rebelles (Paris, 1560), and Tour I'entiere majorite du rot treschrestien contre le legitime conseil malicieusement invente par les rebelles (Paris, 1560); also in Paris BN, Fr. 17199 and 23659, and Dupuy, 290; the first one together with the Legitime conseil in MC, I, 433ff. Cf. the accounts in La Place and La Planche; also Arrest de la court de parlement, sur le faict de la prohibition des conventicules . . . (Paris, 1560; LN 177), and Isambert, XIV, 22; and my discussion in Journal of Modern History, XXXVIII (1966), 337-54. 117

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R eral was more than a consultative body (already the idea of calling this venerable assembly was being invoked). What is more, he argued, the French crown was subject not to civil law but to native custom and to royal ordinances, both of which agreed that the King came of age in his fifteenth year. "The Most Christian King Francis II," he concluded, "is sixteen and a half years old, married, adult, and capable of governing his kingdom by the laws thereof." The Huguenot reply to this was a "legitimate counsel" which likewise appealed to legal and to historical tradition, arguing that it was the Guises who were the true "rebels." According to civil law, the anonymous author declared, the King needed to be guided by a council of notables in order to be protected against "upstarts," and according to history many kings were not considered adults until twenty or more years of age. Both the Estates General and the "Salic law" were necessary for political stability. T o this work Du Tillet (somewhat irritated at being confused with his brother, also named Jean) replied with a second and rather repetitive pamphlet on the same subject. The most comprehensive justification of the conspiracy, and the one most likely from Hotman's pen, was the History of the Tumult, in both Latin and French versions. Though written under the stress of the recent disaster, perhaps as early as April 1559, this work not only rehearsed the Huguenot party line but also attempted to place the conspiracy in some perspective. Like Du Tillet, whose scholarly work he later came to admire, Hotman appealed to legal and constitutional tradition. "There is a law in France," he declared, "established by ancient custom as well as by common agreement of the three estates assembled in the city of Tours in 1484, that if the crown of France descends to a minor, then the said estates should be assembled and thereby the King should be provided with a council for the government of his kingdom during his minority." 23 It was customary, too, that in this council the princes 23 MC, I, 320.

118

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R of the blood should have the places of honor, while foreigners should be excluded altogether. Yet the Guises, who originated from Lorraine, had violated this tradition. Not only had they been admitted to the council, they had come to dominate the government, the Duke in military matters, and the Cardinal in justice and finance as well as in the church. This was why the opposition, including gentlemen of the highest quality, had sought redress. Their acts were in no way aimed at the King himself, nor were they primarily concerned with the religious question. In much of this propaganda the constitutional question (which Hotman here touched on for the first time) was overshadowed by the ever-growing hatred for the Guises, and it is on this subject that we hear the most resounding cries. The charges made by these "tyrants" were thrown back in their teeth. "People of France!" one pamphlet exclaims. "The hour has come to show what loyalty we have toward our good King. The enterprise is discovered, the conspiracy is known, the machinations of the house of Guise revealed.... Has the time come . . . when the crown should be transferred from those whom the Guises call 'Huguenots,' as descended from the line of Hugues Capet, to be given over to those who claim descent from Charlemagne?" 24 Another tract, addressed to the Queen Mother, went so far as to defend Geneva, where at least 3,000 Frenchmen had gone and returned to praise, and then to conclude with a positively hysterical assault on the Cardinal. "It is your fault. . . ," the author ranted, "it is the fault of your ambition and avarice, of the fury of your henchmen, who owe France the lives of so many gentlemen and lords, sent by you to the slaughter in Italy, Germany, Corsica, Scotland, and all parts of the world." Nor were the sufferings of Metz forgotten. According to a "supplication" addressed to the King of Navarre, the Cardinal had extorted over 100,000 24 MC, I, 404, 523, 509; II, 657 (Le Pasquil de la court); Supplication et remonstrance addressee au roy de Navarre (n.p., 1560; BN, Lb.829).

119

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R livres from Metz each year, and the confiscations of Protestant property accounted for much of this. This chorus of complaints reached a crescendo, though by no means a finale, in Hotman's Tiger of France, where the Cardinal is charged with trying to bring about the ruin of the entire kingdom. "You kill those who conspire against you," he wrote, "and yet you see that you are the one who conspires against the crown of France, against the property of widows and orphans, against the blood of innocents. You profess to preach holiness, and yet you know neither God nor His word; you keep the Christian religion only as a mask to dis-guise yourself [the pun is intended]. . . . If Caesar was killed trying to gain the sceptre justly, can we permit you to live, who pretend to it unjustly?" However muted, here sounds, for perhaps the first time, the call to tyrannicide. Hotman had come a long way from the pedantic disputes of the academic world, and he would never be able to retrace his steps. At this point Hotman's anger was directed almost exclusively against the Cardinal, redder with the blood of martyrs, according to another pamphlet, than with his ill-gotten robes. This "tiger" he had already learned to hate during his residence in Strasbourg. But it would not be long before he would become suspicious also of the tiger's "whore," as the Huguenots were calling Catherine de Medicis. Here we can see the makings of a pair of historical myths that would shape Hotman's interpretation of the religious wars—and cloud men's understanding of these events down to the present day. In general, to judge from this propaganda, Hotman had not only committed himself to a particular ideological line but also had in a sense predetermined his reactions to the events of the next generation. NERAC, JULY

1560

Shortly after publishing his Tiger of France, Hotman had left Strasbourg secretly to join Antoine de Navarre at his 120

THE TIME OF THE TIGER court. A little later, at Antoine's request, Beza came to join him; he not only preached in public with great effectiveness but also contributed to the definitive conversion of Antoine's wife, Jeanne d'Albret. For three months he and Hotman followed the court. It was at this time that Hotman, who was still representing the Elector Palatine, met the Prince de Conde and was appointed Maitre des Requetes, giving him further leverage in his never-ending negotiations in Germany. It also gave him a quasi-official status in shadier dealings; for despite the hesitancy of Antoine and the specific warning of Calvin not to provoke further reprisals, Hotman still had his mind on active resistance. Indeed, he was already involved in another enterprise, still more obscure and hopeless than the first. Or was it quite as quixotic as it now seems? After all, neither Antoine nor Conde had been touched by the debacle at Amboise (though Conde was suspected by the Cardinal and in April even had his baggage opened). What is more, public meetings, though illegal, continued to be held, and the movement in the provinces, especially in the Rhone valley, had never been entirely suppressed. There were periodic clashes with Catholics, and a number of churches were attacked or seized. In any case, the loose ends of the conspiracy, and especially of its organization, were somehow taken up during the summer. The target was to be Lyon, and the date was to be 5 September. Again, Geneva provided assistance, and again Hotman contributed his services, though to what extent cannot be determined. The leader of this "tumult" was Edme de Maligny, a confidant of Conde (whose master of the horse, according to one rumor, helped him escape from Amboise), who later had the honor of being decapitated in effigy in Orleans. The attack on Lyon came off on time but not quite as planned, since at the very last moment Antoine issued a warning to 26

25 Hotman (and Sturm) to Calvin, 3 Aug. 1560 (CR, 4197), and to Martyr, 20 Nov. 1560 (Zurich SA, E.II.356a, f. 860; see Appendix IV below); Calvin to Sturm, 5 Nov. 1560 (CR, 3269).

121

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R

Maligny to cancel the operation. But it was too late, and Hotman had another fiasco to lament. This time things were left in still greater confusion. With the discovery of incriminating letters early in September, Conde himself was implicated for the first time, and the next month he was actually arrested and arraigned by sev­ eral royal representatives, including Jean du Tillet.26 From then on, as Hotman told Martyr, Coligny became the best hope of the Huguenots. His approach at this point was quite different. At the assembly of Fontainebleau he pre­ sented (on Hotman's thirty-sixth birthday, as it happened) a bold petition for increased toleration, especially for the Huguenots under his jurisdiction in Normandy and Picardy. Jean de Montluc also spoke on behalf of "those of the religion," whom he tried to distinguish from the "rebels"— another version of the distinction between Huguenots and Malcontents. What was more important, this assembly de­ cided that the Estates General should be called for the first time in over three-quarters of a century. To Hotman nothing could be more inopportune, given the circumstances. For one thing the resistance movement of the Malcontents was undercut, and they were deprived of leadership. Under official urging Antoine de Navarre was persuaded to go to the royal court at Orleans. Before leav­ ing Verteuil he promised Hotman that he would make a clear profession of faith, but when his brother Conde was arrested and condemned to death, he did not dare act so de­ cisively.27 All he could do was to wait for his brother to be 2e A C F , iv, 37; Michiel and Suriano (CSP, Ven., VII, 189); Desjardins, Π, 447; Vita Colinii, p. 35; cf. A. Dufour, "L'Affaire de Maligny," Cahiers d'histoire, VIII 0963), 269-80. 2T Hotman to Antoine de Navarre, 31 Dec. 1560 (Archives de Pau, in CR, 3306; BSHPF, IX, 32-34); to Martyr, 20 Nov. 1560 (Zurich SA, E.II.356a, f. 86o r ); cf. Henri Hauser, "Antoine de Bourbon et 1'Allemagne," Revue historique, XLV (1891), 54-61; and in general Nancy L. Roelker, Queen of Navarre, Jeanne d'Albret 13:28-1572 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), pp. 124ΓΪ.

122

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R

cleared, or pardoned, which in either case would be a repudiation of the Guises. Hotman himself returned from this "perilous journey" on 17 October, he told Zanchi a few weeks later, with nothing to do except stay in Strasbourg— and cultivate his resentment. This he did literally with a vengeance. As usual he looked about for someone to blame, and the most likely candidate was Sturm, who had been his collaborator in negotiations in Germany. What must have rankled most was that Sturm, like Calvin himself, failed to share Hotman's enthusiasm for direct action. In any case, Hotman decided, it was Sturm who had betrayed the first enterprise to the Cardinal of Lorraine. He later added (though Sturm denied it convincingly) that this charge originated with Jean de Montluc. Sturm's retort, which came a year later, was a scathing and somewhat embarrassing exposure of Hotman's presumption, ingratitude, and indiscretion.28 A certain amount of injured vanity is apparent. Sturm boasted that he had known great men like Melanchthon for twenty years, while Hotman, who owed his position to Sturm, was a complete unknown, a careerist who had pushed his way into the confidence of the King of Navarre, the Elector, and Conde. For Calvin's benefit Sturm reviewed the old Baudouin scandal and put it in a very different light. According to Sturm, Hotman was the one who had stirred up trouble against Baudouin, first with Le Douaren and then with the authorities in Strasbourg. Baudouin was innocent of Hotman's charges, especially that of maligning Le Douaren, who died a papist anyway (a charge which, though technically true, could not have pleased Calvin). But Sturm reserved his harshest words for the blunder of Amboise (stultitia Ambosiana), and for Hotman's irresponsible attack on the "tiger of France." Above all, Sturm pleaded, he had nothing to do with leaking information about the conspiracy. 28 See n. 12 above; also letter to Calvin, 29 May 1561 (CR, 3405), and Hubert Languet, Epistolae secretae (Halle, 1699), II, 64, to Mondisius, 11 Dec. 1561.

123

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R There seems to be little reason to doubt this. In any case, others had been with him and Hotman in Heidelberg, including the adventurer Grumbach and an agent of the Cardinal whom Hotman had not even known. Moreover, far too many persons had been in on the plot, and rumors had been flying for weeks before the meeting in Heidelberg. In his eagerness to find support it seems unlikely that Hotman himself could have been a model of secrecy. In all of this Hotman came off rather badly and must have been a little embarrassed before his Genevan friends as well as men like Languet and Montluc, who were also informed by Sturm. Hotman was in fact becoming increasingly independent of Geneva and was, politically at least, moving along his own path. This is particularly clear in comparison with the performance of Beza, for if Hotman had lost his hopes, at least for the time being, Beza had apparently lost his nerve. Just a month after the conspiracy of Amboise he and Calvin had also been put through an embarrassing experience. A French exile, Jean de Morely, had formally charged them with complicity in the plot, and they were forced to defend themselves before the Council of Geneva.29 Although Calvin had done little to discourage the enterprise and had even conferred with some of the ringleaders, he had expressed his doubts all along about it and about La Renaudie in particular; and since his approval had hinged upon the participation of the King of Navarre, he could plausibly claim to be innocent of the charge. With Beza it was a bit different. He was probably involved and certainly sympathetic. Among the items offered in evidence against him was that "Livret de Strasbourg," probably written by Hotman, which Beza had sent to France along with his letters and Beza's own translation of Psalm XL, a veritable "hymn to violence." 29

Naef, La Conjuration d'Amboise et Geneve, p. 113; Calvin to Sturm, 10 Aug. 1559, 23 Mar. 1560, and to Coligny, 16 Apr. 1561 (CR, 3095, 3174, 3374).

124

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R W h o will rise up for me against the evil-doers? was the theme Beza chose. And He shall bring down upon them their own iniquity; And shall cut them off in their own wickedness; Yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off. Even in the sixteenth century, poetry, especially taken from the Bible, was hardly enough to convict a man in a court of law, and Morely was forced to make a public apology. But history has different rules of evidence, and it is hard to doubt, though it may be impossible to prove, Beza's complicity. In the future, in any case, he was obliged to behave more circumspectly. And so, through force of circumstances, Hotman had moved out of Calvin's shadow, though not away from his influence and friendship. Obliged to choose between Geneva and his national (and familial) heritage, Hotman found himself unable to remain in quite the same camp as Calvin and, now, even Beza. Like Dumoulin he could not turn his back on the old Gallican, and the new national, ideals, and yet he was unwilling to surrender his religious convictions. For this reason Hotman found himself the member of a permanent resistance movement. More than that, he was fast becoming its leading ideologist as well as a trusted diplomatic agent. STRASBOURG, 31 D E C E M B E R

1560

As Master of Requests to the King of Navarre, Hotman was submitting his first report. Things had changed radically in the past month, and Hotman was trying to put the best face on recent events.30 The arrest and condemnation of Conde two months before was lamentable, but the death of Francis II a few weeks later stirred hopes again for a reversal of policy. As usual Hotman was fixing his sights on Germany. 30

See n. 26 above; to Bullinger, 8 Jan. 1561 (CR, 3311; Ep 24). 125

T H E T I M E OF T H E T I G E R In Naumberg, he continued, 21 princes had gathered to dis­ cuss their differences, and they were well aware of the plight of the Huguenots, especially the refugees in Pro­ vence. But such optimism was only for Antoine's benefit. Just a week later he complained to Bullinger about the King's incorrigible timidity and his subjection to the Italianate influence of Catherine de Medicis. This was unfortu­ nately not offset by the efforts of Coligny and D'Andelot or by the exemplary behavior of Conde, who (Hotman was amused to report) chased out of his cell a priest sent by Catherine. Most ominous of all was the calling of the Estates General, which in these circumstances Hotman feared would be little more than a creature of the Guises. On 13 December, barely a week after the accession of the new King, Charles IX, the Estates opened at Orleans and were addressed by Catherine's new chancellor, Michel de l'Hopital, who called upon Frenchmen to put an end to fac­ tion. Return to the principles of our forefathers, he im­ plored: une foi, une lot, un rot. But L'Hopital seemed to be practically alone in his sentiments. On the one hand, Catho­ lics wanted to root out heresy and the danger of another conspiracy of Amboise. Just a few days before, Charles IX himself had submitted a protest to Geneva for its support­ ing role. On the other hand, the Huguenots still hoped that the Estates would provide support against the "tyranny of those of the Guises," which propagandists had not stopped assailing. Hotman followed the proceedings of the Estates with care and described them in a letter to his old friend Peter 31 Martyr in Zurich. The representative of the clergy, Jean Quentin, demanded that the "so-called reformed" be con­ demned for heresy. Coligny took this counsel as a personal insult, and Quentin was forced to apologize. On the other side, the speaker for the Third Estate, Jean de Lange, com8iTo Martyr, 22 Jan. 1561 (Zurich ZB, F. 81, ff. 2i'- T ); cf. Brieve remonstrance des estats de France (Rouen, IJ6O), Αϋ Γ ; cf. also Isambert, XIV, 60.

126

THE TIME OF THE TIGER plained about the more concrete distress of the people which underlay the conspiracy of Amboise. The tumult it­ self, he added, was directed neither at the crown nor at the princes of the blood. Now this was standard "rebel" doc­ trine as Hotman himself had expressed it, and Lange was immediately repudiated by his order and imprisoned. With emotions running so high it is not surprising that the assem­ bly was inconclusive. After granting money to the King, it adjourned until August. Though not yet fourteen, Charles was to be crowned at Rheims. And through it all, Hotman concluded, the Guises continued their usual machinations, probably drawing closer to Philip II of Spain and so bring­ ing civil war nearer. This imbalance of power was just what Hotman was struggling to counteract. Earlier this month he wrote a short note to Sir William Cecil, Elizabeth's principal secre­ tary, for this reason.32 He wrote also to Martyr and Bullinger requesting them to send letters for the benefit of Conde and Coligny, who were now professing the faith in a most public manner. Be sure they are clearly copied, he added (Bullinger's hand in particular was notoriously il­ legible). From this time on writing to Protestant sympa­ thizers for support was one of his major employments. In May he was given more active duty. He made a trip to Germany as Antoine's representative in order to find some counterbalancing alliances and as usual to find sup­ 83 port in ending persecution. In Germersheim he talked to the Elector Palatine but eventually received a negative re­ ply. From there he went on to visit Philip of Hesse in Cas82 To Cecil, ι Dec. 1560 (London PRO, SP 70/21; cf. CSP, For., Eliz., 760); to Bullinger, 12 Apr. 1561 (CR, 3372; Ep 25), and cf. Bullinger to Ambrosius Blaurer, 9 Feb. 1561, in Briefivechsel der Briider Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer, ed. Traugott Schiess (Frei­ burg, 1912), III, 580. 33 To Christoph von Wiirttemberg, 8 June and 27 Sept. 1561 (Stuttgart HSA, 115, Bu. 16 and 17), and to Philip of Hesse, 12 July (Ehinger, 2); cf. Friedrich Elector Palatine to Christoph, 15 May and 13 Aug. 1561 (Kluckhohn, I, 177, 193).

127

THE TIME OF THE TIGER sel, taking along an interpreter furnished by the Duke of Wiirttemberg, since he still did not speak German with any facility. Philip showed no great interest either. Leipzig, Dresden, and Wittenberg were Hotman's next stops before finally returning to Strasbourg. Christoph of Wiirttemberg continued to hold out some hope, and Hotman kept writing to him about the needs of Conde and his party. In September he set out again for Stuttgart to visit the Duke personally, but when his horse died on the way through Worms, he was forced to be content with another letter. Although Hotman had strong support from both Navarre and Conde, Christoph, who was also an old comrade in arms of the Duke of Guise, was becoming increasingly committed to the ultra-Lutherans and was unwilling to pursue the matter further. About all Hotman received for his efforts was an unusual amount of diplomatic experience. Meanwhile he watched and commented on the progress of the faith in all parts of France. Although still illegal, public meetings were held almost every day in Paris. Conde had been freed in December, and Hotman was pleased to describe his icy meeting at court with the Cardinal of Lorraine, whom he totally ignored while seated next to him at dinner. The Admiral and the Queen of Navarre, too, were showing great constancy. As a result of an edict drawn up in January a number of religious (or political) prisoners had been released. Those of the religion were coming out into the open to worship not only in Paris but also in Normandy, Guyenne, Gascogny, Orleans, Poitiers, Angers, and elsewhere. "In Metz," he told Bullinger, "assemblies of more than three thousand persons are held every two days. . . . Almost all of the exiles from Metz who took refuge here have returned."34 In the spring there were incidents of iconoclasm, which he reported on approvingly, and clashes between Catholics and Protestants, which continued into the summer. For a while he thought he smelled victory. "The S4

128

T o Bullinger, 12 Apr. 1561 (CR, 3372).

THE TIME OF THE TIGER numbers of the faithful are increasing at an amazing rate . . . , " he told Philip of Hesse in July. "The Queen Mother has said openly that she does not want to see its growth checked. The constable, the Guisards, and others oppose it with all their might, but it avails them nothing." Could it be that the tiger was being overcome?

129

VI.

T H E T I M E OF THE W H O R E

STRASBOURG,1561-1563 "In order to achieve peace . . . there is no better or quicker way than to permit two churches in the kingdom, one Roman and the other Protestant. I have no doubt that some people will be upset by this suggestion." Anonymous, 1561 STRASBOURG, 6 AUGUST Ι 56 Ι

HOTMAN'S devotion to his Cause had made him a dangerous man. " T h e Duke of Guise," he told Philip of Hesse, not without a little pride, "has written to all princes in corre­ spondence with the King of Navarre that I am a revolution­ ary [seditiosus et tumultuarius] and that my trips to Ger­ many are intended only to discredit him and his brother." 1 Unfortunately, that same devotion had put him slightly out of touch with political reality. Filled with resentment, un­ happy memories, unreal hopes, and half-baked diplomatic designs, he did not seem to realize that in many ways he and his patron Antoine de Navarre were working at cross purposes. T o Hotman, as to Calvin and Beza, Antoine was weak and vacillating, and his attempts to find a modus Vi­ vendi with the Guises seemed a kind of surrender. What Hotman could not see was that there was a movement of all parties, however sporadic and halfhearted, toward con­ ciliation, or at least some sort of balance: hence the socalled "triumvirate" formed in the spring, the coalition be­ tween the Duke of Guise, the Constable Montmorency, and the Marshal St.-Andre. T o Hotman, Catherine was now a "declared enemy of the religion" and an ally of the Guises. What he did not understand was that she represented prac­ tically the only hope of reestablishing an equilibrium. l

Ehinger, 3.

130

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

Over a year before, indeed on the very eve of the conspiracy of Amboise, Catherine had shown her sympathy for a policy of conciliation. Under the shadow of the anticipated coup, and with her and Coligny's support, an edict was passed, offering a measure of tolerance, that is, liberty of conscience if not of worship, to the Huguenots.2 Even the Cardinal of Lorraine seemed to take it in good humor. "The King likes those who eat fish better than those who eat meat," he remarked, "but if one wants to eat meat, he will not prevent it." Of course this last-minute concession, even if it was more than a gesture, could hardly be acceptable to the conspirators, and in the subsequent backlash the edict was stillborn. But potentially this policy could still be revived, and in fact it was the only way to avoid the civil war which everyone was now thinking and talking about. The partial survival of such a policy seemed to be implied by the relatively moderate edict of July 1560, by the famous harangue given by L'Hopital to the Estates General in December, by the royal order of April 1561 encouraging more tolerant procedures by judges, and above all by the decision to call a colloquy late in the summer to discuss religious differences. The major sponsor of, if not the moving spirit behind, this policy was the Queen Mother herself. "Political" though her motives may have been, she nonetheless represented the best chances for peace, or at least for the postponement of hostilities. In this atmosphere of caution, compromise, and chicanery, Hotman could only seem to be an agitator. Party lines were by no means as clearly marked as they seem in retrospect, and there were still alternatives to civil war, if only in the minds of uncommitted individuals. This was not a season for revolution or even forceful confrontation, in short, but rather for dubious liaisons, furtive bargaining, 2 Edict du roy sur la grace et pardon a ceus qui ont este awe assembles et en amies es environs de la ville d'Amboise (Paris, 1560; LN

180).

131

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E and counterfeit contentment. If 1560 was the year of the "tiger," 1561 may be regarded as the year of the "whore." STRASBOURG, SATURDAY, 23 AUGUST Ι 56 Ι

Hotman had just returned from Germany, and in less than three weeks he would be off again on the same trail. In the meantime he was taking a break from his travels, celebrat­ ing his thirty-seventh birthday with his family and friends, and catching up on his correspondence. A message had just arrived from Paris, telling of Conde's open defiance of the recent edict of July prohibiting open assemblies, of the Eng­ lish attempts to prevent the passage of Mary of Guise to Scotland, of the freeing of a number of conspirators (except for Chandieu), of the serious illness of the Cardinal of Lor­ raine, and other encouraging news. 3 Hotman was sending this along with a personal note to Philip of Hesse, whom he had recently visited, and he commented with particular pleasure on Conde's act, which contrasted so painfully with the behavior of his brother Antoine. But this message contained more ominous signs of the present drift of royal policy. At the beginning of the month an assembly of the clergy, a national council in all but name, had been called at Poissy, concurrent with the Estates General which had been reconvened in the nearby town of Pontoise. The purpose of this ecclesiastical assem­ bly was not only to consider the King's mounting financial problems but also to sponsor a discussion between Catholics and Reformers. Ostensibly this meant seeking some sort of doctrinal agreement in order to arrest the alarming growth and polarization of religious faction. Although Hotman did not remark much upon this development—colloquies, after all, were an old story with him—it was to mark a turning point in his own career as well as in the fortunes of his cause. What is more, though Hotman was perhaps un3

Ehinger, 6.

132

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

aware of it, Conde would come to an agreement with the Guises the very next day (24 August) and so in effect lend his support to the assembly.* The Colloquy of Poissy was the brainchild of a new liaison, that between Catherine and her chancellor, Michel de l'Hopital, though of course it also recalled similar conferences held by Lutherans to discuss their own problems. But no matter how it was viewed and no matter how innocently it was intended by Catherine, it constituted a menace to the Huguenots. The assembly proposed to settle differences on the basis of a Lutheran compromise doctrinally quite unacceptable to Calvin, and still worse, it threatened to drive a wedge between the Calvinists and whatever German friends they still had left. In July Calvin had already learned that the Duke of Wiirttemberg had urged Antoine de Navarre to adopt the Confession of Augsburg, and he wrote quickly to the King, urging him to resist the bait. It was only, as Calvin later put it, "adding fuel to the fire raging all over France."5 What lay behind these maneuvers? Like Hotman, Calvin saw the influence not only of the Queen Mother but also of the Cardinal of Lorraine and the Duke of Guise, who were becoming even more ostentatiously receptive to Lutheran doctrines. This is why Calvin instructed Beza not to agree to any compromise at the colloquy. Not that Beza really needed to be told. In March he had already concluded that "everything in France tends to revolution," and he had no intentions of playing into the hands of his enemies, though he was willing to sit down with them and to bide his time.6 To the colloquy came at least a dozen well-known Protestants, headed by Beza, who had been invited simultaneously by the King of Navarre, Conde, Coligny, and the re4 Jacques Bourdin, Appointement fetid entre mesire Loys de Bourbon, prince de Conde, et monsieur le due de Guise (Lyon, 1561). 5 Chandieu to Calvin, 22 July 1561, and Calvin to Navarre, 31 Aug., and to Beza, 10 Sept. 1561 (CR, 3452, 3502, 3513; Beza, 190). 6 Letter to Sturm, 7 March 1561 (Beza, 168).

133

THE TIME OF THE WHORE

formed church of Paris, now fully organized and holding regular public meetings. On the same day that Hotman sent off his letter to the Landgrave of Hesse, Beza arrived at St. Germaine en Laye; and the following day, Sunday, which was the feast of St. Bartholomew, he preached at court. What is more, marveled the Spanish ambassador, he did this "without any resistance."7 Peter Martyr was coming, al­ though his employers in Zurich demanded a hostage first, and so was Calvin's old secretary Nicolas Gallars. The Prot­ estants would be far outnumbered, of course, by the Galil­ ean prelates. Most intimidating, they would have to per­ form before both the tiger and the whore of Huguenot propaganda, for Catherine was to preside, while the Cardi­ nal would himself act as chief Catholic spokesman. A dramatic confrontation, and yet behind the histrionics the plot was already largely predetermined. Both sides came not to listen but to talk—the Gallicans to strike poses and to be shocked, the Calvinists to protest and perhaps to proselytize. At the time it seemed a vain "comedy," in retro­ spect a hopeless tragedy. But it was a comedy without jokes —or a tragedy without heroes, except perhaps for a few off­ stage. For there were a few individuals working for a sensi­ ble denouement, and herein lies the real interest of these few months. Between the antagonists, to put it simply, there was a more or less distinguishable group which, besides acting as a kind of admonishing chorus, aimed at serious negotiation and conciliation. "All Gaul is divided into three parts" was the way that the leader of this third "irenic" party, George Cassander, summed up the situation.8 Cassander was an T Chantonney, 6 Sept. 1561 (MC, II, 17); cf. Desjardins, Π, φοή, and De Serres, Histoire des choses memorables. The most useful works on the colloquy are H. O. Evennett, The Cardinal of Lorraine and the Council of Trent (Cambridge, 1930), and Romier, Catholiques et Huguenots a la cour de Charles IX (Paris, 1924); most recently, D. G. Nugent, "The Cardinal of Lorraine and the Colloquy of Poissy," Historical Journal, XII (1969), 596-605. 8 Letter to Petrus Ximenius, September 1561, in Opera omnia

134

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E Erasmian theologian who had been campaigning for some years for religious concord along the lines suggested by such moderates as Melanchthon and Castellio, that is, by distinguishing between essentials and nonessentials of doctrine and concealing the latter under a broad formula of compromise. In France certain like-minded authors, including Claude Gouste and the Cardinal's protege Claude d'Espence, lent support to such a program, and one anonymous publicist even recommended that the government accept as legitimate the fact of two separate churches. In addition to such scattered opinions there were a number of powerful personages who might be counted on to promote this sort of compromise. Among these potential moderatores et pacificatores Cassander listed the King of Navarre and his advocate Paul de Foix, Catherine de Medicis and her chancellor L'Hopital, Jean de Montluc, and perhaps even the Cardinal of Lorraine. Upon such untested foundations rested the great irenic design of 1561. The Huguenots were bitterly opposed to any such scheme, and yet Hotman himself might never have been drawn into the debate except for one additional factor, namely, the reappearance of his old antagonist Baudouin, who emerges at this point as a disciple of Cassander and a primary link between German and French irenists. Baudouin's views on religious concord were several years in the making. In 1556, after losing his Strasbourg chair to Hotman, he had offered his Constantinus Magnus to the Elector Palatine not only as a bid for his favor (and for a job) but also as a model of ecclesiastical policy. This book, calling for a "collation of opinions," was denounced by Calvinists and placed on the Index by the Catholics. The next year Baudouin published a commentary on various imperial edicts concerning Christians and indirectly urged the same goals. At Heidelberg Baudouin, like his friend Boquin, ap(Paris, 1616), p. 1131; letters from Baudouin, pp. ii2off. Exhortation et remonstrance aux princes du sang . . . (n.p., 1561; Ars. 8°H. 12765s).

135

THE T I M E OF THE W H O R E

parently found a home. Yet, while enjoying the Lutheran atmosphere of the university, neither regarded himself as cut off from the reformed church of France. In his lectures Baudouin in particular continued to develop his program for a restoration of the respublica Christiana. Like Hotman, Baudouin was not content merely with theorizing about the restoration of lost ecclesiastical innocence. He, too, became involved in politics and gained experience in the tortuous art of theological mediation. In 1557, representing the Elector Palatine, he attended the Colloquy of Worms, where he met Melanchthon and Cassander, with whom he began a long correspondence. The following year he went to the assembly at Frankfurt, where he spoke with the King of Navarre's representative Paul de Foix and no doubt encountered Hotman and Calvin as well. In 1559 we see him in correspondence with Sir William Cecil, whose father-in-law Anthony Coke he had known in Strasbourg, in order to gain favor and to counteract the ugly rumors about him being circulated by certain Calvinists.9 Elizabeth was one of the great prospects of Christendom, he added, and he hoped that she would marry soon. In the spring of 1561, finally, he attended the Diet of Naumberg and watched the Lutherans fighting before an amused Catholic delegation. In general Baudouin rested his hopes on the Augustana, broadly construed, and agreed with the German princes that the main problem was to find a practical modus vivendi, a political solution, rather than theological precision. To this extent Baudouin seems to be not only a nicodemite but also, through an ingenious adaptation of legal humanism to contemporary dilemmas, a kind of protoPolitique. 9 To Cecil, 1 Mar. 1559 (CSP, For., Eliz., 411), and Fabricius (see below, n. 22); cf. letter from Melanchthon to Baudouin, 8 Oct. 1557 (CR, 6371). The story is told by Joseph Duquesne, "Frangois Bauduin et la reforme," Bulletin de VAcademie delphinale, ;s ser., IX (1917), 55-108; on the Diet of Naumberg, F. W. Barthold, Deutschland und die Huguenotten (Bremen, 1848), I, 331.

136

THE TIME OF THE WHORE In Baudouin's program of pacification there were, of course, personal as well as political motives; he had forgotten neither his distaste for popery, which still kept him in exile from Arras, nor his treatment by the Calvinists five years before, which made him persona non grata in his chosen profession. He distrusted both the corruption of the Roman church and the charismatic nature of the Genevan church—"Calvinolatry" was his term for it—with its growing intolerance. But what most disturbed him was the fact that Calvinism constituted a political faction, hence a threat to the Gallican principle of national unity. This fear was more than confirmed by the conspiracy of Amboise, for which he bitterly attacked Hotman.10 At present he was still speaking of European unity, but increasingly he was beginning to feel that the most serious Huguenot threat was not so much to religious uniformity as to political stability. So it was that Baudouin began to look once again to France. In the spring of 1561, while his patron Friedrich was drawing nearer to the Calvinist camp, he took a leave of absence and returned to Paris, carrying with him his irenic dreams. Like the Calvinists, he believed that the key was held by the apparently uncommitted Bang of Navarre. In May he saw both the King and Paul de Foix, probably at Rheims, where the coronation of Charles IX was held on the fifteenth. This time, for a change, Baudouin had been preceded by Hotman in the attempt to secure the support of this notoriously fickle prince. But during the next few months, to Hotman's dismay, Antoine shifted more and more away from the Huguenots and toward the kind of political and feudal manipulations that he could better understand. At this point, Hotman himself was off in Germany much of the time, and it seemed that the victory belonged to Baudouin, who returned to Paris in Navarre's entourage and even became a tutor in his household. It is a technical point of largely antiquarian interest whether Baudouin was a professing Calvinist or a Lutheran 1(1

See below, n. 20.

137

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

at this stage; very likely it remains in the eye of the beholder. Essentially, Baudouin's purpose was ecumenical, and the Augsburg Confession offered the only possible common ground. In June, with Navarre's help, he obtained interviews both with the Cardinal of Lorraine and with Catherine de Medicis, who seemed to be open to schemes of a Lutheran (or a crypto-Lutheran) compromise. About the Cardinal, who was a notoriously charming fellow, Baudouin later told Calvin: "I swear to God that our conversation was more religious than any I ever had with you."11 At the same time, Baudouin remained in contact with Cassander and was putting the finishing touches on his own lectures on law and history, which constituted another variation on the same irenic theme and which he dedicated jointly to Antoine and to L'Hopital. This syncretistic Institution of Universal History and its Conjunction with Jurisprudence, which purported to demonstrate the "integrity" and "universality" of history, especially of ecclesiastical history, was a kind of sublimated version of his ideal of a unified Christendom. Having thus (as he thought) sowed the seeds of concord during the summer of 1561 in preparation for the Colloquy of Poissy, Baudouin returned to Germany early in August, presumably in order to stiffen the resolution of the German princes. STRASBOURG, 9 S E P T E M B E R

1561

Hotman was just leaving for another trip through the Rhineland; Baudouin was already there. It was a curious situation: both claimed to be representing the King of Navarre (and Hotman the Prince of Conde as well); both 11 Responsio altera ad Joannem Calvinum (Paris, 1562), p. 53, on Baudouin's interview with the Cardinal, 17 June, Josef Susta, Die Romische Curie und das Concil von Trient (Vienna, 1904), p. 209. On Baudouin's De Institutione historiae universae et ejus cum jurisprudentia conjunctione, see my "Baudouin's Conception of History," Journal of the History of Ideas, XXV (1964), 35-57.

138

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

were trying to court the Duke of Wiirttemberg and the Elector Palatine (who was Baudouin's patron); and both wanted to establish some sort of Franco-German liaison. But there the parallel ends. Not only were they working at cross purposes, but their efforts served in effect to cancel each other out. While Hotman, following Calvin's line, strove to prevent a rapprochement between the Lutherans and the French government, Baudouin seemed quite deliberately to be doing the Cardinal's dirty work, finally convincing Calvin that he was a saboteur as well as a backslider. At the end of August Calvin wrote directly to the King of Navarre about this "apostate three and four times over" and later to the King's estranged wife Jeanne d'Albret that "Your husband is having his bastard taught by a . . . traitor to God."12 Attempts were made to discredit Baudouin with the German princes, and even the support of Pier Paolo Vergerio, the ex-nuncio then serving the Duke of Wiirttemberg in Stuttgart, did not counteract this. If Antoine de Navarre was becoming a Julian the Apostate in the eyes of the Calvinists, Baudouin had cast himself in the part of his "Ecebolius." So Le Douaren had dubbed him five years before, and so the Calvinists would henceforth regard him. Meanwhile, the key to Baudouin's hopes and to Hotman's fears was to be found in Poissy, where the colloquy opened on 9 September. They were missing a dramatic scene, though both were kept well informed. Hotman remained directly in touch with Beza and sent detailed reports to Philip of Hesse.18 12 Calvin to Antoine de Navarre, 31 Aug. 1561, and to Jeanne d'Albret, 24 Dec. (CR, 3502, 3663)-, Baudouin to the Queen, 15 July 1561 (Kluckhohn, I, 188); Vergerius and Baudouin to Christoph von Wiirttemberg, 15 and 10 Aug. 1561 (Kausler and Schott, pp. 277,

280). 13

To Calvin, 12 and 17 Sept. 1561 (CR, 3514, 3524; Beza, 191, 193); "Discours de Theodore de Beze au colloque de Poissy" (CR, 3515); Hotman to Philip of Hesse (Marburg PA, 1846, 4if.). Many contemporary accounts, e.g., La Fosse (p. 44) and HE; cf. Suriano, 23 Aug. (CSP, Ven., VII, 278, 280, 281); Gallars to Throck-

139

T H E T I M E OF T H E

WHORE

In his opening discourse Beza entered boldly upon the problem of the eucharist to enlighten the Gallican prelates and especially the Queen Mother on its finer points. Cries of "blasphemy!" interrupted his discourse. Afterwards the Cardinal of Tournon rebuked him, but Catherine de­ manded that the discussion be carried on in a civilized man­ ner. A week later the Cardinal of Lorraine made his reply, calling for an end to eucharistic debate and, taking a leaf from L'Hopital's book, for a return to old-fashioned Galli­ can unity. Some auditors were moved to tears; not so Beza or Martyr, recently arrived from Zurich. "I have never heard anything more impudent or inept," Beza remarked to Calvin. This hostility was much increased when, on 24 Sep­ tember, the Cardinal demanded to know if those of the "new religion" would subscribe to the Augustana. This was precisely the strategy that Baudouin had been urging—and the Calvinists expecting—all along. In reality this marked the end of the colloquy, though the formal death blow was struck a few days later by Lainez, general of the Jesuit order (the legalizing of which, ironi­ cally enough, was the only enduring accomplishment of the assembly). Belatedly, Antoine of Navarre sent a group of Lutheran theologians, including Boquin (whom Calvin sus­ pected of sharing Baudouin's malice, though Hotman tried to disabuse him of this notion), but this move served little purpose except to cast further suspicion on the King and on Baudouin himself. By mid-October the colloquy had broken up, leaving little but disillusionment and a bad taste in many mouths. Beza received congratulations for his stand from Bullinger and others, but it was a pyrrhic victory at best. Baudouin, however, had not yet given up. Although Beza did not see him—"thank God"—he was back in France for morton, 10 Sept. and 20 Oct., and Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 20 Sept. (CSP, For., Eliz., 492, 569, 516); and Desjardins, Π, ^6οβ.

140

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E the last two or three weeks of the colloquy. 14 Before coming he had paid one last visit to Cassander, urging him to travel to Paris on behalf of his irenic cause. He failed to persuade him, but he did secure something almost as effective— copies of Cassander's most recent and most comprehensive pronouncement, On the Office of a Pious Man, which he brought back to France for distribution. 15 It was this book, which Calvin immediately misattributed to Baudouin him­ self, that discredited him once and for all with the Calvinists and that set orf one of the bitterest and most indelible con­ troversies of the century. Needless to say, Hotman was more than ready to resume the fight. STRASBOURG, LATE NOVEMBER Ι 56 Ι

Recently returned from another unsuccessful expedition to the Palatinate, Hotman received a disturbing note from Beza.1" It seemed that Baudouin had just published, as usual under the guise of a legal commentary, an attack upon Calvin, and Beza wanted Hotman's help in answering it. Not only was Baudouin being retained by the King of Na­ varre as a tutor at a salary of 1,300 livres, Beza had heard, but he was trying to obtain a permanent chair at the Uni­ versity of Valence. Fortunately, Beza had been able to warn the Bishop of Valence, Jean de Montluc, who was sympa­ thetic to the Huguenots at this time. In fact Montluc was considering Hotman himself for the job and would write him about this, but many events were to intervene before 14

To Calvin, 3 Oct. 1561 (CR, 3579); from Bullinger, 24 Nov.

(Beza, 214). 15

De Officio pii viri, in Opera, pp. 781-97; cf. Baudouin, Defensio insontis libelli "de Officio pii viri''' (Cologne, 1562). The King of Navarre to Cassander in Heinsius (ed.), lllustrium et clarorum virorum epistolae selectiores (Leiden, 1617), p. 184. 16 Beza to Calvin, 25 Nov. 1561 (CR, 2624; Beza, 216). For Baudouin's "conduite" to the University of Valence (no text ever drawn up) see Founder in RHDFE, XIX (1895), 203. 141

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

Hotman was able to accept this offer. For the present, the important thing was that once again Baudouin had been foiled by his former coreligionists—an old story by now. This time the campaign had been launched by Calvin himself. Behind the plot to introduce the Confession of Augsburg at the Colloquy of Poissy he was sure that he saw the hand of that "rascal" Baudouin and the poison of Cassander. On 10 September he wrote to Beza that he had just seen a pamphlet published in Basel (the De Officio pit viri), and he was sure that the author was Baudouin, especially after having read his recent book on the conjunction of history and jurisprudence. The threat was so serious that Calvin decided to make a reply at once, and three weeks later, while the colloquy was still in session, he reported that his book was in press.17 Technically Calvin was mistaken. His target was indeed a "mediator" (an increasingly pejorative term in his vocabulary) but not a "renegade mediator" as the title had it, for the author of the book after all was Cassander, not Baudouin. But this was a quibble: in effect Baudouin accepted responsibility for the work and in fact wrote a defense of it the following year. It is true that Calvin could not contain the resentment which had been building up for ten years and more, and he accused Baudouin of ambition and avarice as well as betraying his former comrades. But the main issue was ideological: Baudouin was defiling the "pure cult of God" in France as well as in Germany. In general this debate, with Calvin's cocksure pontifications on one side and the ecumenical vagueness of Baudouin and Cassander on the other, resembled nothing so much as the old dispute between Luther and Erasmus. Calvin belligerently denied any belligerent intentions—"for we make war on no17

Calvin to Beza, 10 Sept. and 24 Dec. 1561, and to Jeanne d'Albret, 24 Dec. 1561 (CR, 3513, 3662, 3663; Beza, 190, 224); Responsio ad versipellem quendam mediatorem, qui pacificandi specie rectu, evangelii cursum in Gallia abrumpere molitus est (Geneva, 1561); also in CR.

142

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

body." Rather it was Baudouin, he argued, who was bringing civil war nearer. Baudouin struck back under cover of a commentary on Roman law, on which he had been working for several years; and it was this book, which contrasted the equitable provisions of ancient jurisprudence with the "new and capital decrees" of Calvin, that Beza called to Hotman's expert attention.18 Then the polemic burst forth in spectacular fashion, the most devastating blast being Calvin's Response to the Insults of Baudouin, which Baudouin's boyhood friend Crespin published before the end of the year. Calvin attached no significance to his misattribution. He still believed that the villain of the piece was "Baudouin, whom I once loved." "I nourished that viper, that plague, in my house," he cried, going on to charge that Baudouin had taken advantage of his position as secretary to steal some of Calvin's papers. And Baudouin's religion was as flexible (fiuctuosa) as his morals. Calvin scoffed at the references made by "Balduino-Cassander" to such theologians as Bullinger, Melanchthon, and Bucer. They had nothing in common with this doctrinal chameleon. More damaging than Calvin's petulant outcries was the supplementary material published by Crespin, especially the private correspondence, which included the letter sent to Hotman six years before by Le Douaren after the news of Baudouin's attack on him in Strasbourg, another from Antoine Le Conte (an old colleague from Bourges and a cousin of Calvin), and several from Baudouin to Calvin, dating from the time when he was signing himself "Petrus Rochius." Whatever we may think of the ethics of such a publication, it was most effective in making Baudouin out 18 Baudouin, Ad leges de famosis libellis et de calumniatoribus commentarius (Paris, 1562), on Dicrest 47, 10, 1, 6; cf. preface to Baron, Opera omnia (Paris, 1562); and Calvin, Responsio ad Balduini convicia (Geneva, 1562); also in CR. Beza to Calvin, 22 Dec. 1561 and 12 Jan. 1562, Sturm to Calvin, 29 Aug. 1562, and Bullinger to Beza, 28 Sept. 1563 (CR, 3659, 3693; Beza, 223, 229, 289); and cf. E. Doumergue, One Poignee de faux (Lausanne, 1900), p. 104.

143

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E to be an unscrupulous schemer and a hypocritical traitor. The volume, which represented a kind of inverse Festschrift, concluded with attacks by other old friends of Baudouin. One of these was a contribution by Hotman, sent in by Beza in January. At last he had the pleasure of seeing his worst enemy pilloried in public and even, though anonymously, of getting in a few blows himself. In his long and intemperate "Letter to Baudouin," appended to Calvin's Response, Hotman reviewed his rival's entire career, and in his indictment he listed five specific charges.19 "Baudouin," he began, "your old friends all criticize you on counts of religion. Almost fifteen years ago, first of all, after fleeing for religious reasons from your home to Strasbourg, where you demanded admission into the French congregation and made a public confession of faith . . . , you afterwards joined Calvin in Geneva and professed the same faith; but then you changed your opinion and returned to Paris, where you failed to observe the pure Christian faith and sometimes even frequented the temples of idolatry. Secondly, you returned after a few years from Paris to Geneva . . . , where you lived for several months with Calvin, ate at his table, and attended his church . . . ; but then afterwards you again changed your opinions and went to Bourges, where you taught law and reverted to p o p e r y . . . . Thirdly, three years later you joined the church of Christ at the University of Heidelberg . . . , where you approved as Gospel truth the position of the so-called Gallican churches.. . . Fourthly, upon returning to France, you placed yourself under the protection of the Cardinal [of Lorraine] . . . , enemy of the Gospel. . . . And fifthly, while at the French court . . . , you said that the evangelical princes of Germany were sorry about the change of religion. . . ." All this added up to apostasy and betrayal, Hotman concluded. So Le Douaren had been right; Baudouin 19

De Officio turn in religione turn in scriptionibus retinendo, in Calvin, Responsio, pp. 81-99; Advis . . . sur le faict de la reformation de Veglise (Paris, 1572), and in MC, V, 139-45.

144

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

was indeed a disciple of that "Ecebolius" who had brought Justinian back to paganism. Nor did Hotman spare Baudouin's scholarly work. Though adept at dialectic, Baudouin was ignorant of the law, and his work fell far short of the standards of the best contemporary scholars (and Hotman did not scruple to set his own name down beside those of Sigonio, Panvinio, and others). Hotman was especially pleased to note that Cujas had never returned the praise which Baudouin had bestowed upon him. All of Baudouin's books came under fire, starting with that commentary on the Institutes which Hotman had condemned as plagiarized years before, and ending with the recent Institution of Universal History and its Conjunction with Jurisprudence, which had formed part of the irenic campaign of the previous summer. "The mountain labored," Hotman sneered, "and out came a ridiculous mouse." Anticipating his anti-Romanist arguments of later years, Hotman pointed out the fallacy of linking the specifically Roman law tradition with universal history, as if other nationalities did not share in it. The readiness to find harmony, as conspicuous in his complacent view of history as in his religious "versatility," Hotman also rejected with contempt. "We are placed by God upon the earth as in some great amphitheater," Baudouin had declared in the opening and closing words of his book, "first as spectators, then as actors, and finally as judges." Nonsense, Hotman retorted. The world may be like an amphitheater, but the role of men is rather that of gladiators than of participants in a play. Baudouin must have felt the force of this parallel during the next few years. Promoting his cause was certainly no game; it was indeed a fight, and a losing one at that. In the spring of 1562 he defended himself and Poissy in a "second response" to Calvin, that "Jupiter of Lake Leman" whose thunderbolts so terrified men. Now he called upon the authority of Sebastian Castellio as well as Melanchthon and Bucer. Again he contrasted Calvin's "new faction" with the 145

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

irenic ideal, the edicts of the Christian emperors and the views of St. Augustine about the Donatists with Calvin's "inhuman decrees," and "Calvinolatry" in general with true piety. Again he rehashed the old Le Douaren controversy which Calvin had revived with Hotman's help, not only in this book but in his edition of the works of Le Douaren's old rival Eguinaire Baron. Baudouin took further revenge in an anonymous work which he addressed to the Parlement of Paris in June, and this time he named Hotman in the indictment, which drew heavily upon Sturm's charges.20 By this time, of course, the wars of religion had come, and this indeed was what provoked this "First defense of religion and government against the pernicious factions of the conspirators Calvin, Beza, and Hotman." Here Baudouin—the author was almost certainly Baudouin though at one point he shamelessly referred to his "learned" self—reviewed the entire course of events of the three previous years. Geneva was the source of the trouble, which began as schism and ended, inevitably, as civil war; and the tumult of Amboise was the first step. "Of this most atrocious conspiracy," Baudouin charged, "you Beza were the leader, Calvin the author, and Hotman a signatory." He was particularly incensed at Hotman's libel of the Cardinal of Lorraine (now or very soon to be Baudouin's patron). This Tiger of France was well named, Baudouin remarked, for "the author of the book was certainly a tiger, that is, a barbarous man, impure, impious, ungrateful, evil-doing and evil-speaking." Still worse were Hotman's activities as a "false legate" in Germany, and his help in undermining the Colloquy of Poissy. Such was Baudouin's account of the underlying causes of the wars of religion. The controversy continued to smolder and flared up several times in the next few years. In 1563 Beza finally pub20

Religionis et regis adversus exitiosas Calvini, Bezae, et Ottomani conjuratorum factiones defensio prima (Paris, 1562); also CR, 3805; Sturm's letter, Ch. V, n. 12 above. 146

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

lished his version of the story of Baudouin, who had joined with the Cardinal of Lorraine to corrupt the King of Navarre.21 Once again, calling upon the testimony of Hotman, Cujas, and Le Conte, he took up the defense of Le Douaren, and he added the letter which Calvin had received from Sturm, lamenting the use which Baudouin had made of his criticism of Hotman. The next year he continued the attack in his Life of Calvin and later in the Ecclesiastical History. Similar views were expressed by other Calvinists, including Antoine Guerin, who belatedly instructed Baudouin in the "true office of the jurisconsult" and charged that he had changed religion seven times in a space of five years. On Baudouin's side were two responses made by Michael and Gabriel Fabricius, who were students and apparently almost alter-egos of Baudouin.22 The first of these was to Calvin, the second, which was the fullest though by no means the most accurate account of the whole affair, to Calvin's "Cerberus" Beza. He and not Baudouin was the true "Ecebolius." The author inquired if Calvin had not been a Christian before he came to Geneva, or if he had been baptized for the first time in Lake Leman, and charged that he hated those who disagreed with him even more than (a particularly appalling pun) the "Hotoman Turks." For many of these, including Dumoulin, Castellio, and Zebedee, Fabricius expressed sympathy, but his main concern was to justify Baudouin, hence unavoidably to discredit Hotman. In Strasbourg, Baudouin had recommended Hotman for a chair of law, though he had taught only grammar; "but soon he found what a viper—what a viper!—he had nourished in his breast." And then this creature had tried to undo Baudouin's missionary efforts in Germany. He had never 21 Ad Francisci Balduini apostate Ecebolii convicia (n.p. 1563), p. 35, with a preface by Calvin (see Beza to Bullinger, 9 Sept. 1563, Beza, 285); Vie de J. Calvin (Paris, 1864), p. 146; HE, II, 718-24; Antoine Guerin, Epistola ad Franc. BaJduinum apostatam (n.p., 1564). 22 Gabriel Fabricius, Responsio ad Bezant Vizeliam Eceboliam (Paris, 1567); Michael Fabricius, Responsio ad Calvinum et Bezam pro Francisco Balduino (Cologne, 1564); cf. Beza, 308. 147

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

learned Calvin's gospel, only his rhetoric, and was eventually exiled from Strasbourg for his infidelity (propter adulterium). So Hotman, this Frenchman with a Turkish name claiming to be German, was indicted for hypocrisy and betrayal, the very charges brought against Baudouin by the Calvinists. Despite his resentment and disappointment, Baudouin still had not given up on his irenic dream and continued to peddle his increasingly unpopular ideas, first in England, through correspondence with Cecil; then in the Netherlands, where he hoped for some help from William of Orange; and again in France. But he was frustrated at every turn, usually through Huguenot opposition, though the circumstances are often rather mysterious. At one point Hotman's friend Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, Elizabeth's ambassador to France, passed on to Cecil Hotman's "charyte (dysguysyd with the name you se) towards Baldwyne"; and whatever this was (perhaps one of the recent invectives; Hotman's own?), its purpose was certainly to discredit him.23 In 1564 Baudouin was given a commission—by Conde he claimed—for another tract on the reformation of the church, but it was apparently stolen by some enemy and published in a pirated and distorted version, so that he was forced to write still another "response" protesting his ecumenicity. In any case, in one way or another, Baudouin was misunderstood to the very end. Meanwhile, as if to confirm all the prejudice against him, though in fact it was the last stage of a natural progression, Baudouin had gone through his final and most convincing conversion. Even if he had not been hounded out of the reform movement, it is likely that he would have made his way back into the orthodox Gallican fold. As it was, with the coming of the wars, he had little choice. He could not 23

Throckmorton to Cecil, 9 May 1564 (London PRO, SP 70/71/ 44). See also nn. 9 and n above; Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 8 Jan. 1562 (CSP, For., Eliz., 789); and P. J. Blok, History of the People of the Netherlands, trans. R. Putnam, III (London, 1900), 12. 148

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

return to Heidelberg after the reception of Calvinism into the Palatinate. In the company of the Cardinal of Lorraine he attended the last sessions of the Council of Trent, though he was in no way sympathetic to its canons and decrees. With the Cardinal's help, however, he did succeed in persuading Philip II to revoke the ban against him passed by Charles V twenty years before.24 He remained immersed in ecclesiastical studies and continued for some years to promote his ecumenical ideas, but eventually he returned to the teaching of civil law at the University of Angers. He became Master of Requests of the Duke of Anjou and died in 1573 in the service of that house. Like Dumoulin, Baudouin remained unforgiven by his former comrades, and he kept his conspicuous position in Calvinist demonology down to the present century. For Hotman, too, the battle was not quite over. As we shall see, Baudouin's biographer, protege, and successor at the University of Angers, Papire Masson, would take up the struggle and to some extent the weapons of his mentor, though he chose somewhat different grounds. But to that spectacular anticlimax were added the bitterness of years of civil war, the experience of years of political resistance, and the shock of an inconceivable atrocity. B E R L I N , LATE FEBRUARY

156Z

Hotman was on another of his interminable and frustrating German voyages, although now at least he did not have to worry about undoing Baudouin's work. This time he was accompanied by the French ambassador, Jacques d'Angennes, Sieur de Rambouillet, with whom he had come from Strasbourg two months before. Rambouillet's instructions were that, "after assuring him of the great affection and good will of the King and the Queen Mother, he should 24 "Charte relatif a Frangois Baudouin, 1563," published by Dareste in BSHPF, I (1853), 147; Middlemore to Cecil, 24 Jan. 1563 (CSP, For., Eliz, 147).

149

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

give [Hotman] his letter of commission along with a halfyear of his pension."25 Here was another curious result of that year of compromise: Hotman found himself not only in the pay of Catherine de Medicis but also doing the work of the Cardinal of Lorraine. Characteristically, Catherine's motives were at once broader and more obscure than those either of Hotman or of Hotman's tiger. Like the Cardinal, she wanted cooperation from the German princes in order to take a common stand at the Council of Trent, now in its last stages. Yet she certainly shared some of Hotman's fears about the power bloc on which she depended—the "triumvirate," dominated by the Guises—and for a time they seem to have had a common goal. In any case, according to Hotman's friend Christopher Mundt, who was Elizabeth's representative in Strasbourg and points north and east, Hotman and Rambouillet were working to promote both of these not entirely reconcilable purposes. They had passed through Stuttgart, where they saw the Elector Palatine, then Torgau, where they saw the Elector of Saxony and had a reunion with Hubert l_anguet, and finally, their furthest stop, Berlin, where they were received by the Elector of Brandenburg. And while Rambouillet kept in touch with Catherine, Hotman reported regularly to Philip of Hesse. Hotman must have been encouraged by Catherine's attitude and may even have hoped that she had found religion. She had been in touch with the Calvinist Elector Palatine, and there were various stories circulating about her indulgent view of Protestantism at court. The little Duke of Anjou had reportedly asked to have only "Lutheran" teach25 Instructions of Rambouillet (Paris, BSHPF, 10, f. 38r; see Appendix V below); Marburg PA, 2824, f. 69, and 2434, f· '5· See also Rambouillet to Frederick, 20 Dec. 1561, and Frederick to H. Wolfgang (Kluckhohn, I, 233, 298); Mundt to Cecil, 30 Dec. t$6i (CSP, For., Eliz., 753.2); Catherine de Medicis, La Ferriere, I, 278, to M. de Rennes, 3 Mar. 1562; and letters of Prosper de Saint-Croix to Cardinal Borromeo, 13 Mar. 1562 (ACF, ser 1, IV, 50); also Holbrach to Calvin, 31 Dec. 1561 (CR, 3678).

150

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E ers, and his mother had only laughed. But Throckmorton's remark, that her authority was quite as dear to her as either religion, was probably nearer the truth. Nor were there any other prospects among the great persons of the realm, especially now that the King of Navarre had finally chosen orthodoxy. In fact the crisis was mounting. As Languet wrote at just this time France had become "a kind of theater on which the eyes of all Europe were fixed."26 In Paris the faith was growing in boldness as well as in strength, and on 26 February Beza, who had not returned to Geneva, reported that 25,000 came to hear him preach. Among them were Charles Dumoulin, wearing his academic attire, and other persons of quality, whose presence was intended to show Catherine that those of the religion were not, as common opinion had it, men of low condition and lower intelligence.27 The overwhelming Catholic majority in Paris, on the other hand, was becoming more and more demonstrably hostile. And everyone, it seemed, was talking about and expecting civil war. Nor were Hotman's frantic travels accomplishing anything significant. If the German princes visited by him and by Rambouillet were happy to see Catherine's change of heart, they had no intention of doing her work at a popish council, still less of interceding with the Guises for the Huguenots. At the same time, relations between the Calvinists and the Lutherans were worsening, for it was at this point that the pressure on Sturm and Zanchi in Strasbourg was reaching a peak. Sturm's only hope, a forlorn one, seemed to be another colloquy, but of course he and Hotman were hardly on speaking terms. It was under such conditions— the famous lull before the storm—that Hotman returned to Strasbourg at the beginning of March. 26

From Languet, 1 Feb. and from Mordisius, Torgau, 20 Feb. 1562 (Epistolae secretae, II, 193, 198). 27 Beza to Calvin, 26 Feb. 1562 (CR, 3723; Beza, 240); "Journal de Bruslart" and Chantonney, 23 Feb. 1562 (MC, I, 72, and II, 24); and Languet, 1 Feb. 1562 (Epistolae secretae, II, 68).

151

T H E T I M E OF T H E STRASBOURG, 3 M A R C H

WHORE 1562

The Council of Thirteen was approached by Hotman, "the famous legal scholar already known to us." He had just come back from Germany with Rambouillet, and he brought a three-page letter from Catherine de Medicis containing a warning about a new Catholic league, including the papacy, Spain, Savoy, Ferrara, and Venice, directed against the Protestants.28 This was depressing enough. But awaiting him on his return were two even unhappier bits of news which seemed considerably more urgent. One concerned the conference of Saverne held a few weeks before, representing another victory of the Guises over the Huguenots. The other concerned the massacre of Vassy just two days before. However separate these events may seem in retrospect, Hotman could not help but believe that there was a vital connection between them, and this was indeed a dreadful conclusion. To Hotman this turn of events signified the resurgence of the tiger. In the eyes of some the Cardinal of Lorraine was still under the spell of the irenic dream of the previous fall; according to others he was still trying to drive a wedge between Huguenots and Lutherans in order to secure the power of his family. The upshot was the same: he continued to court the Lutheran princes and to seek a formula of concord. For some months his brother the Duke of Guise had been in friendly correspondence with his old comrade, the Duke of Wiirttemberg. A conference was arranged for midFebruary in Saverne, residence of the Bishop of Strasbourg and now subject to the Cardinal. Besides the Guises, Christoph of Wiirttemberg, and William of Hesse, a number of theologians were to be present, including Sturm and Zanchi from nearby Strasbourg, Johann Brenz (with whom Beza 28

Strasbourg AST, Protocoll der XIII, cited in J. W . Baum, Theodore Beza nach handschriftlichen Quellen dargestellt (Leipzig, 184351),11,565.

152

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E later had a theological duel), Jacob Andreae, and others from Stuttgart. The Cardinal's first purpose was to persuade the Germans that he was not hostile to Lutheranism so that they would support him in his campaign against the Council of Trent. In the meeting of 17 February he was especially accommodating. It happened to be the Cardinal's thirty-seventh birthday, and perhaps he was more than usually charming, but even so his concession—if we can believe the Duke of Wiirttemberg's account of it—was amazing.29 "I have read the Confession of Augsburg," he declared. "I have also read Luther, Melanchthon, Brenz, and others. I entirely approve of their doctrines. . . . But I am compelled to dissemble for a time, that I may gain some that are yet weak in the faith." What about the Guises' reputation for persecution, the Duke wanted to know? He had heard that they had caused the deaths of thousands of Lutherans. "I know that my brother and I are accused of that and of many other things as well," he sighed, "but we are wronged." Their hostility, he added, was directed only at the Zwinglian and Calvinist heretics. In any case, he swore, "I am guilty of the death of no man condemned for religion's sake." He had even tried to get a stay of execution for Anne du Bourg. And both he and his brother swore never to harm any adherents of the "new doctrines." It was an impressive performance, and Zanchi for one was quite taken in by the Cardinal's apparent sincerity. Christoph, who was still considering an alliance with the Calvinists, had reason to be skeptical, if only because he had talked to Hotman and Beza; but for several weeks he seemed to accept the Cardinal's assurances. William of Hesse, on the other hand, smelled deception at once.80 Like ™ Published in BSHPF, IV (1856), 184¾ cf. HE. 30 Zanchi to Beza, February 1562, and Beza to the pastors of Zurich and Bern (Beza, 241, 249). Cf. Hotman, Vita Colinii, p. 35, and De Furoribus gallicis, f. vi. 153

THE TIME OF THE

WHORE

Hotman, of course, Calvin and Beza assumed that it was a plot, and so have most Protestant historians ever since. As far as results were concerned this might as well have been true. For if the Cardinal did not succeed in his formal pur­ pose, which was to undermine the Council of Trent, he did manage to prevent an alliance between the Lutherans and Calvinists, at least until it was too late. Much more shocking than the trickery at Saverne was the atrocity of Vassy. Here we can see the making of a historical myth—a myth that would shape the course of history more powerfully than many other apparently more significant happenings before or after. Given the persecution complex of the Huguenots about the Guises, it was too much to ex­ pect that they would look upon this unfortunate aftermath of the Saverne conference as pure coincidence, which it no doubt was. But even Hotman's "tiger" could not have fore­ seen how this episode would be publicized and inflated. To most Catholics this massacre was the result of intolerable impudence and provocation on the part of Protestants. To moderates it was unfortunate but basically a blunder on the part of the haughty Francis of Guise. But to the Huguenots, and especially to Hotman, who later made it a central thesis of his historical work, it was the single determining cause of the subsequent conflict—"the Sarajevo of the religious wars," as a modern historian has called it.31 It was also the prototype for (and to some the prognostic of) an even more notorious massacre, and an even more potent historical legend, that occurred a decade later. The story of Vassy is simply told, though confusion and bias have left some of the details obscure.32 Returning from the Saverne conference, the Cardinal of Lorraine went to sl

Evennett, The Cardinal of Lorraine, p. 146; Francois de la Noue, Discours politique* et militaires, ed. F. E. Suttcliffe (Geneva, 1967), p. 609. 32 Contemporary accounts in MC, III, 11 iff, and ACF, ser. 1, IV, 103ΓΤ; also Beza, 249, and Crespin, II, 209. 154

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E his archbishopric in Rheims, while the Duke of Guise went to his estate in Joinville, where he had a reunion with his wife, Anne d'Este, and his mother, Antoinette de Bourbon. His mother complained, not for the first time, about the scandalous and heretical goings-on in the nearby town of Vassy. On Christmas Day 900 persons had reportedly attended a Protestant service there, and such meetings were becoming increasingly flagrant. In fact there was nothing unique either about the place or about such services, except the unfortunate proximity to the Duke at this time. On Sunday, 1 March, probably not by accident, the Duke and some of his followers passed near the church of Vassy and, learning that the Huguenots were holding services, decided to pay a visit. This time there were perhaps 1,200 present. Protestant accounts are obviously biased, but Guise's men were soldiers, and it does not seem likely that their motives were entirely peaceful even if one of them did not cry, as reported, "We'll give them a hugenotting." As Guise and his men rode up, the choir was singing a psalm: "I am afflicted and ready to die from my youth on" is one of the verses, if indeed they got that far. Which side threw the first stone? The question is hardly more relevant now than it is answerable. After the fighting was over, 74 Protestants were dead or dying. The Duke denied responsibility; the Huguenots, in innumerable pamphlets, cried "murder!" So did Calvin, Beza, and Hotman. Nor, in view of the treachery at Saverne, did they doubt that the act was premeditated, and this assumption went directly into the making of the Huguenot theory, as expressed by Hotman and others, of the origins of the war. But guilt aside, everyone had to agree with the remark of Pasquier after he heard the news in Paris: "If you will forgive a snap judgment," he wrote to a friend, "this is the beginning of a tragedy that we shall all be playing." 33 »3 Pasquier, IV, 15.

155

T H E T I M E OF T H E STRASBOURG, 5 M A R C H

WHORE 1562

Hotman was honored by the scholarchs with a certificate of merit for his services to the city, but for him the award must have been tinged with irony.34 The events of the previous weeks were more than enough to drive Hotman away. T w o years before he had blamed Sturm for betraying the enterprise of Amboise; after the conference of Saverne he began charging him with more intimate complicity with the Cardinal. This was partly in revenge for the personal attack which Sturm had launched against him the summer before, partly because of Sturm's defection to the Lutheran camp. Moreover, Hotman had not been active as a teacher for months, and his replacement, a German named George Nessel, had already been hired. Nor could he ever bring himself to sign the Confession of Augsburg, as all professors were now obliged to do. Although Hotman would not formally give up his citizenship until 1565, his days at Strasbourg were obviously numbered. But events in France were making such personal considerations trivial. It was in Paris that matters were being decided. Beza demanded punishment for the crime of Vassy, but though the Queen Mother agreed to an investigation, the King of Navarre, now wholly absorbed in his Spanish interests and so committed to the Catholic party, objected violently. It was at this time that Beza made his famous remark to the now wholly unsympathetic King of Navarre, that it was the fate of the true church to endure many blows. "But," he concluded, "may it please you to remember that it is the anvil that has worn out many hammers."35 The "hammer" in question, the Duke of Guise, returned to the city on 16 March and was acclaimed by many citizens. Throckmorton was expressing the fears of 34

Strasbourg AST, No. 324, f. 244; Hotman to William of Hesse, 7 June 1562 (Ehinger, 10). 35 L'Estoile (ed. Petittot), I, 55; HE, II, 1; Throckmorton to Cecil, 14 Mar. 1562 (CSP, For., Eliz., 554).

156

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

most Huguenots and some Catholics when he reported that the Duke had come back to overthrow the Protestant re­ ligion. During his noisy procession through the streets, he passed, not by accident, the Prince of Conde and his men. This was probably the last uneventful confrontation of the two men. Hereafter events moved rapidly. On 20 March Beza sent out an exhortation to all the reformed churches of the king­ dom, warning them of the threat from their enemies. "Let us arm ourselves with prayers, hope, and patience," he wrote, but then went on to suggest somewhat less mild re­ sistance by advising them to place their trust in the Prince of Conde.36 Two days later, Palm Sunday, he preached a sermon while wearing arms. The following day the King of Navarre, who had attended, thought it wise to issue a proc­ lamation forbidding gentlemen to carry swords about the city. Only four gates were kept open during the week, and extra guards were put on. The same day Conde left the city, to the chagrin of some of his more belligerent followers and to the despair of the Huguenots thus left unprotected. Yet they continued to petition for permission to hold serv­ ices in their conventional place at the Port St. Jacques. Twice they were refused on pain of death. Tension was mounting, and most ominous of all, the coming Sunday would be Easter. Conde may have assumed the role of Pompey in leaving Paris for Meaux, but it did postpone hostilities for a while. Without their leaders Catholics and Huguenots passed Eas­ ter Sunday in sullen anger, watching each other profane the sacraments. The next day Conde, now joined by Coligny and D'Andelot, began his march south, passing through the outskirts of Paris at St. Cloud, where he could see that the 36 Beza to Calvin, 22 Mar., 28 Mar., and to the churches of the kingdom, 20 Mar. 1562 (CR, 3749, 3755; Beza, 246, 247, and Vol. IV, Appendix III, and Baum, Theodore Beza, II, 172); MC, II, 27, and ACF, ser. 1, IV, 61. Cf. Pierre de Paschal, Journal de . . . ι $62, ed. M. Francois (Paris, 1950), p. 11.

157

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E Guises had complete control of the city and learned that they had the young king in their hands as well. So on the procession continued, singing psalms and devising somewhat unseemly entertainments en route. Conde thus led this curious pilgrimage to Orleans, where he set up headquarters on Wednesday, 2 April. Beza had come with him, and Hotman would join them within a week. Here at last Hotman would find an outlet for his belligerence. ORLEANS, 8 A P R I L

1562

The long-awaited war had finally come, and Hotman had found a new job, acting as secretary and adviser to the high command of the Huguenot forces. His title was "conseiller et maitre des requetes en la maison du prince Louis de Bourbon"—the same rank he had been given at Nerac two years before by the King of Navarre, who was now in the opposite camp. In his first letter, to an unnamed friend in Germany, Hotman lamented "the miseries and calamities of this realm which make it impossible to write long letters. I shall say only that the persecuted Christian people have never been so wretched." 37 The massacre of Vassy had been the spark, he was convinced, and it was a portent of worse to come. "In this event," as Hotman told Amerbach a few days later, "our leaders see the signal for a general massacre being prepared by our enemies in all parts of the kingdom." Already, he added, the Catholics were receiving troops from Germany and Switzerland as well as from Spain. Hotman was busy not only with voluminous and desperate diplomatic correspondence but also with the production of propaganda, an occupation in which he was by now an expert. Among other things, he compiled an account in Latin of the massacre of Vassy. He may have had a hand too, as Beza certainly did, in the composition of Conde's 37

To Frederick III (?) (Bern SB, 141); to Amerbach, 12 Apr. (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 1481). Hotman's commission in Paris BN, Cinq cents de Colbert, Vol. 16, f. 70. 158

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E famous "Declaration" setting forth the justification for his recent actions.38 The massacre of Vassy, so the argument ran, was a violation of the edict of January as well as a crime against humanity. Not only had the guilty party not been punished but he had returned to Paris armed and almost in triumph. Obviously there was a conspiracy afoot. Therefore, because of his duty to God, to His church, to the crown, and to the cause of peace, Conde pledged to deliver the young King and his mother from the clutches of the Guises, as the Malcontents had hoped he would do two years before. Despite its claims of legitimacy this document was in effect one of the most radical of the century, and through successive restatements and elaborations it led directly to the revolutionary propaganda of the 1570's and 1580's.

During the first half of April, Hotman went on to tell Amerbach, over 3,000 men had gathered at Orleans, including such notables as La Rochefoucauld and Rohan, from all parts of France. By June the number had swollen to 20,000, including 5,000 mounted troops. There was also a steady stream of refugees from Paris, and by the end of July, he estimated, not more than three true "Christians" were left. The Parlement had made its peace with the Sorbonne. Parisians walked the streets, terrorizing supposed Huguenots, wearing the red and yellow colors of the Guises, and crying, "Vive le roy, le Due de Guise!" 39 For Hotman, then, Orleans was the real capital of the kingdom, and the government was that of the "association" formed by pact on 11 April. Besides ten "chevaliers," headed by Conde, Coligny, and D'Andelot, this list had the names of 61 "gentilz-hommes," including the man responsible for Henry IPs death, Montgomery, the "iron-fisted" La Noue, and Hotman's friend Sechelles, who likewise had lost his patri38 MC, III, 222-32, and others; cf. Remonstrance de i?ionseigneur le prince de Conde . . . sur le jugement de rebellion (n.p., 1562; LN 267)· 39 To Philip of Hesse, 7 June 1562 (Ehinger, 10).

159

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E 40

mony. For some reason, perhaps because they were not regarded as military personnel, neither Hotman nor Beza nor Jacques Spifame appear on this list. Hotman's main business was to seek financial and military support outside of France, and of course he applied to the same sources which he had been approaching for months, if not years. He had charge of Conde's correspondence and often handled negotiations without consultation. 41 Com­ munications were difficult, and sometimes Hotman re­ quested his correspondents to pass along information to others. Catholics and Huguenots frequently intercepted each other's messages, and once Hotman complained about the loss of 26 letters on the road to Lyon. He wrote to his old friend Amerbach and asked him to take the cause be­ fore the Council of Basel, and later he wrote to Bern for the same purpose. He appealed to the Duke of Wiirttemberg, to the Elector Palatine, and especially to Philip of Hesse. In mid-May he informed Hesse of the approach of Catholic forces from Germany and of the mission of the young Baron Dohna, and he sent along, as he so often did, Conde's prop­ aganda as it came off the presses. Returning to Strasbourg late in May, Hotman continued this unrewarding work with modest success. Early in June Philip of Hesse sent a mission to Strasbourg and continually promised, for what it was worth, to intervene more directly if other princes did so as well. The Baron Dohna returned with money from Basel, and other funds were pledged by various Protestant merchants in Lyon and Swiss cities. When Lyon was threatened by Marshal Tavannes, Bern 40

London BM, Landsdowne, Vol. 5, f. 181, published in Beza, IV, Appendix VII; MC, III, 258-62. 41 The following account is based mainly on letters to Hesse, 17 May, 7 June, 16 June, 22 June, and to Harnack, 7 June (CR 3789; Ehinger, 10, 11, 12, 9); to Friedrich III, Elector Palatine, 11 July, 27 July, 24 August (Stuttgart HSA, A. 115, Βϋ. 23 and 24; Ehinger 14); to Bullinger, 2 July (Zurich SA, E.II.358, f. 238"); to Council of Bern, 8 Aug., 30 Aug., 5 Sept. (published by Dareste in RHDFE [1853], 493); other two in Bern SA, 54, f. U5 r ; 56, f. 5i r . 160

THE TIME OF THE WHORE even sent a few men, though soon recalled them. But in general this aid was too little and too late. The German princes had been reluctant to offer even diplomatic support to the Huguenots in the spring; they were not likely to involve themselves now in a dangerous and unprofitable war. More promising, it seemed at first, was England, where Hotman still had friends. The principal contact at the beginning of the war was Jean de Poix, "Gentleman of the King's chamber" and until lately lord of Sechelles in Picardy. Though in touch with the Triumvirate, Sechelles was a particular friend of Conde and of the Admiral, and he ranked high on the list of Conde's military "gentilzhommes." In April he was sent to England with a recommendation from Throckmorton, who sympathized warmly with the Huguenot cause and repeatedly urged Elizabeth to furnish positive aid before it was too late. Along with him Sechelles carried not only copies of Conde's declaration and two books of psalms translated by Beza but a letter from Hotman to Cecil, telling of the Huguenots' plight.42 He spoke with both Cecil and the Queen before receiving his passport to return to France in May. He was warned by Throckmorton not to go back to his house, since it was being watched (and soon was to be confiscated) by his enemies, and so he went directly to Orleans, just in time to join Conde's "association." There were no visible results of this mission, but at least Throckmorton and Mundt continued to plead the Huguenots' case with Elizabeth. Meanwhile, belated efforts were being made to forestall open conflict through negotiation. It is unlikely that the French government was very serious about this, though Hotman still hoped that Navarre would come to his senses. The moving spirit behind this effort was obviously Catherine, who was now distrusted more by the Catholics than by « T o Cecil, 13 Apr. i;6i (London PRO, SP 70/36). Cf. Throckmorton to Elizabeth and to Cecil, 24 Apr. and Sechelles to Cecil, 2 Mar. 1562 (CSP, For., Eliz., 1043, 1044, 5); Hotman was also in touch with Sir Thomas Wroth (cf. Oxford, Tanner MS, 314, f. 215').

161

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E the Huguenots. In fact she had apparently let it be known that neither she nor her son Charles could speak freely while in the hands of the Guises, and so lent support to the Huguenot thesis that she and the King were captives. In any case she sent Jean de Montluc to Orleans as intermediary, and he must have arrived at about the same time as Hotman did. But this mission, too, was a failure, and Montluc found himself almost as unpopular as the Queen Mother. The Catholics, as she warned him, would like to have him strangled. This remark Montluc passed on to Hotman, who of course had little difficulty in believing it, especially since he had heard the very same story about Catherine herself.43 "That woman from Florence" was almost as exasperating to Catholics as she would later be to Huguenots. But none of this was of much significance to Hotman; his thoughts were now absorbed in the conduct of the war.

STRASBOURG, Ι Ι JULY

1562

"Most illustrious Prince," Hotman wrote to the Elector Palatine, "today I have received a packet of messages from my lords the Prince of Conde, the Admiral, and D'Andelot, and I am sending you most of them, asking you very hum­ bly to distribute them. Those for the Dukes of Wurttemberg and Zweibrucken I have sent by the Baron Dohna, who has gone to Basel to try to borrow money for our cause, and he will send them to Montbeliard, where we be­ lieve these princes are. As for our news, I have made a sum­ mary of a long discourse which my lord the Prince of Conde has sent me, from which I have learned of the ruses, cunning, hypocrisy, and trickery which the Triumvirate has used to trap the poor prince. . . . He commands me that he wants to hear no more talk of colloquies, knowing how he has been abused until now, and this is why he has gone to prepare for battle. For on his return he will have the trum43

162

To Hesse, 7 June 1562 (Ehinger, 11).

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E pets and drums sounded to go out in pursuit of his enemies and to fight them." 44 What was called for now, in short, was not the ecumenical talents of Jean de Montluc but the brutal decisiveness of his brother Blaise, whose bloody exploits around Toulouse Hotman would soon be reporting. By June, as Hotman told Philip of Hesse, the Huguenot forces numbered 20,000, including 5,000 cavalry. They were poorly equipped, he admitted, but they were superior in courage, determination, and money. Montluc's successes were matched by those of the Baron d'Adrets (and so was his cruelty, though Hotman did not add this). There was other encouraging news. In August, Hotman was happy to report that D'Andelot was returning from Germany via Lorraine with a large group of mercenaries, including 3,000 Reiters and 4,000 Landsknechts.^ In Lyon the Protestant governor Soubise was given carte blanche by Catherine for the defense of the city. Letters from London also informed Hotman that Elizabeth was sending another ambassador, Henry Knollys, to Germany to assist Mundt. And in November, Hotman, in the company of Jacques Spifame, went back to Germany to the Diet of Frankfurt in order to repeat Conde's justification for the benefit of the assembled princes. Hotman remained in contact with Conde, D'Andelot, Coligny, and others; and in general his letters, surprisingly cool and objective, provide a fairly continuous account of the first war of religion. Yet they are filled with rumors and spur-of-the-moment conjectures and so are perhaps more interesting as a sample of Huguenot opinion than as sources of information, except for local and occasionally biographical material. At the same time Hotman seemed increasingly to lose his feeling of participation, or at least of being able to affect events noticeably. His correspondence increasingly 44

To Elector Palatine (Stuttgart HSA, A. 115, Bu. 23). To Elector Palatine 24 Aug., and to Council of Bern, 30 Aug. 1562 (Ehinger, 14; Bern SA, 54, f. 115')· On his mission to Frankfurt, MC, IV, 38. 45

163

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E appears to be that of a chronicler rather than of a diplomat and counselor, so that it is often hard to infer his personal thoughts and feelings. N o w officially declared to be "rebels" by the Parlement of Paris, the Huguenots could hardly hope to reverse the situation in a military fashion except by repairing their first mistake, if such it was, by reducing Paris to submission. But the seige of the capital, described by Hotman in a letter to Hesse in December, was unsuccessful.46 Hotman was also depressed by the viciousness of the German mercenaries and by the misfortunes of Orleans and Paris, which were struck successively by the plague, by famine, and by a severe economic crisis. On 19 December came the biggest clash of the war at Dreux. Hotman reported this to Hesse in rather confused terms, but soon he realized that it was a disaster for the Huguenots. The assassination of the Duke of Guise in February 1563 Hotman mentioned without comment. Nor did he discuss the unhappy bargain of the Huguenots with Elizabeth which offered her Dieppe and Le Havre (as surety for Calais) in return for military aid, though he did report on the miserable campaign of the English in Normandy. As for the Peace of Amboise signed in March, Hotman regarded it as a very unsatisfactory settlement. The only consolation was that it left Conde in a relatively strong position. During this entire year little is known of Hotman's activities, or even his reactions. Obviously he felt that he had been fighting a just war, but whether he was revulsed by the loss of life and betrayals no one can tell. He does not seem to have emerged from it in any way chastened. In August he appeared to be in good spirits. The reformed religion was flourishing all over France, he told both William of Hesse and the Elector Palatine, particularly in Lyon and 48

To Hesse, 24 and 29 Dec. 1563, 3, 4, and 6 Feb. 1563, and to his son William of Hesse, 28 Mar. 1563 (Ehinger, iy-20); to Bullinger, 24 May 1563 (Zurich SA, E.II.358, f. 83').

164

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E 47

the Rhone valley. This was an especially pleasing prospect, since he had been invited by Jean de Montluc, the Bishop of Valence, to accept a professorship of law there. He must have relished the idea even more in that he was once again depriving Baudouin of a position. For Hotman at least, the first civil war had improved his status and even brought him back to his homeland. CHATEAU OF CHATILLON, 3 OCTOBER

1563

Hotman was paying a visit to Admiral Coligny and D'Andelot at their family estate, and he was evidently deeply involved in their affairs. The fighting was over for the time being, but behind the scenes the struggle continued. The trouble stemmed mainly from the murder of the Duke of Guise the previous January. The assassin Poltrot, though he had reversed himself several times, had implicated Coligny in the crime; and the Guise family, especially the Cardinal of Lorraine, wanted revenge. Coligny expressed no regrets for the Duke's death, which indeed he regarded as a blessing for true religion, but he denied the least touch of guilt. In May his innocence had been proclaimed also by Conde and by Montmorency and his son. But the Guises continued to demand a full investigation. Just a week before, as Hotman heard, the King had tried to prevent a new outburst of hostilities by calling the case before his council, and in fact this was why Conde was absent from Chatillon. None of this prevented Huguenot leaders, including Conde as well as the newly widowed Queen of Navarre, from continuing the war against "idolatry," but it did cause uneasiness among those of the religion. Such was the situation which Hotman related briefly to the Duke of Wurttemberg. 48 He reported also that while 47 To Hesse and to Elector Palatine, both 15 Aug. 1563 (Ehinger, 21; Kluckhohn, I, 439). 48 To Christoph von Wurttemberg and (same text) to Philip of

165

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E still in Strasbourg he had seen the Duke's messenger Barthold, who was on another of those missions of mercy from Germany, this one no doubtedly on behalf of the Admiral. Hotman had traveled with him to the chateau of the Prince of Portien, then on to Chatillon, where the Admiral had ad­ vised Barthold to proceed directly to Conde at court. Hotman would have conducted him in person, but he had too many affairs here in Orleans to leave at present. Other news, he added, Barthold would bring back with him to Germany. But it was all talk of peace, and this seemed to interest Hotman hardly at all. It seems time to take a somewhat broader perspective on Hotman and his world. Obviously, he had realized the first part of his ambition: he had risen high in the counsel of the Huguenot leaders. What he was doing specifically it is hard to tell; as usual it was too confidential for him to leave a written record. But by now he had certainly cemented his ties with Coligny and, if only inadvertently, begun to collect information for the biography of the Admiral which he was to write a dozen years later. He had also guaranteed his fu­ ture career, at least as far as the Huguenots were con­ cerned, and for the rest of his life he was, at least intermit­ tently, on the payroll of the Protestant high command. Whether or not he realized it, however, he would pay for this by surrendering control of his fate. He had tied his for­ tunes to those of his party, and he would hardly take an­ other step, or write another word, without reminding him­ self of his commitment. For the time being the future did not look too dismal. The next month Coligny returned to court and apparently to royal favor. In January his case was taken under personal surveillance by the King, who then suspended judgment for three years. T o some it seemed that the balance of parties had been restored, however precariously, and that once Hesse 3 Oct. 1563 (Stuttgart HSA, A. 115, Bii. 25; Ehinger, 22). Cf. MC, V, 17ΓΪ. 166

T H E T I M E OF T H E W H O R E

again Catherine de Medicis held the reins of power. At the same time, attempts were made to suppress inflammatory propaganda. Hotman may well have been relieved. In December he had gone off to receive the reward for his many important, if unheralded, services. He went first to the court at Fontainebleau, where he was received by the Chancellor de l'Hopital and where he visited the royal library.49 Then he moved on with his family to Valence to assume the chair of law which Jean de Montluc had offered him two years be­ fore. For the first time in over four years Hotman could for­ get his political anxieties and devote himself to his profes­ sional work. At least for a while. *» See Ch. VIII, η. ι below.

167

VII.

I N T E R L U D E : A N A G E OF REVOLUTION "Calvinism, as is proved by many examples, is seditious in spirit, and wherever it enters it is determined to usurp dominion, even over magistrates." Christoph, Duke of Wurttemberg, 1562

EUROPE,

1564

So THE WHIRLWIND, long expected, had finally arrived, though Calvin, who died in May, was spared most of it; his successor Beza, who had said "Goodbye France" for the last time, was the one who had to ride it out. The world that now presented itself to his eyes was fearfully unfamiliar. The wars of France with the Hapsburgs had passed, and so had those with England, which had given up its last claims to Calais in the Treaty of Troyes signed on 13 April. Meanwhile a much worse conflict had descended upon Western Christendom, a conflict that was not to be settled either by negotiation, by attrition, or even by prolonged military engagement. For at least a generation, irreconcilable conflict was to become a way of life, and Hotman for one would never see the end of it. These years marked a turning point in history, a point at which the world not only turned but turned too rapidly for most observers to follow. This is the first sense in which Hotman's age was one of revolution. Germany, the source of much of the disturbance, though peaceful, was as deeply divided as ever, indeed even more so because of the recent reception of Calvinism into the Palatinate of the Rhine. This conversion, carried through with iconoclastic fervor by Frederick III in October of this year, frightened Lutherans even more than it did Catholics, although the stated purpose was "ridding the Empire of the horrors and idolatry of the papacy." As the Duke of Guise's old friend Christoph von Wurttemberg remarked, "Calvinism, as is proved by many examples, is 168

INTERLUDE seditious in spirit, and wherever it enters it is determined to usurp dominion, even over magistrates." He urged the other princes, therefore, to take up arms against the "poison of the Palatinate."1 The Netherlands, infected with the same poison, was rapidly approaching a crisis. In August, Philip II ordered that the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, confirmed in January by the bull Benedictus Deus, should be introduced; and much of the winter was spent in trying to prevent this, especially by William of Orange, who was admitted to the council after Cardinal Granvelle's departure. The Calvinist party followed the same pattern of growth as it had in France: the lower nobility joining the lower classes and townsmen and consequently forming a quasi-feudal, or military, sort of organization, while the ideological impetus was maintained more or less directly from Geneva. By the end of this year public meetings were being held. The parallel with the situation in France was only too conspicuous; what made it more ominous was the probability that the two lines of development would converge. As for the "Italian problem," which European powers had been fighting over for more than half a century, it no longer existed. Or rather after the Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis setded it in favor of Spain, the Italian problem was reincarnated in the ultramontane papacy and so was universalized, if not sublimated, and transported into the field of ideology. The "popery" so dreaded by reformers of all persuasions, which before had been identified with very particular abuses or vague institutional discontents, now assumed more tangible forms, the most intimidating of which were the Tridentine decrees and the Jesuit order. In March, two months after confirming the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, Pius IV had had them printed, not without some opposition within the curia. The problem of their "reception" by various governments was to bedevil European rulers for generations to come. In the 1

Kluckhohn, I, 371.

169

INTERLUDE sixteenth century it was accomplished only in Italy, Portugal, Poland, and Spain (and there only "without prejudice to the King's rights"). There was resistance in Catholic Switzerland as well as in the Empire. "And it passed in France as a Proverbe," remarked Sarpi not altogether facetiously, "that the moderne Councell had more authoritie than that of the Apostles because their owne pleasure onely was a sufficient ground for the decrees, without admitting the Holy Ghost." 2 The boast of papists, reported by Hotman's friend Mundt in Strasbourg, that Philip II himself would enforce the decrees, made them even less palatable. Neither Catherine de Medicis nor the Cardinal of Lorraine had any intention of admitting this alien legislation. Hardly less sinister in the eyes of Gallicans as well as Protestants was the "new sect" of the Jesuits. One notable member of this redoubtable papal army, Peter Canisius, was dispatched to Germany in November to urge acceptance of the Tridentine decrees and in general to promote the cause of ultramontanism—now being used in a new and inverse sense. In France the Jesuits had been seeking a foothold for over a decade, especially in Paris, where the Colloquy of Poissy finally granted them permission to establish a school. The university hired several distinguished lawyers, Charles Dumoulin and Etienne Pasquier among them, to fight the case, but during this year the decision went against them. This was another canker in the body politic for the rest of the century and after. The most spectacular attack against these "new inventions" of the papacy was set off by Hotman's old friend and sometime mentor, Dumoulin, during this very year. 3 The 2

Sarpi, The History of the Council of Trent, trans. N . Brent (London, 1640), VIII, 12; Mundt to Cecil, 8 Feb. 1564 (CSP, For., Eliz., 142). 3 Conseil sur le faict du concile de Trente (Lyon, 1564), and Consultation . . . sur Vutilite on les inconveniens de la nouvelle secte ou espece d'ordre religieux des Jesuites (n.p., n.d.). Cf. "Advis de quelques celebres Advocate en faveur de l'universite de Paris contre

170

INTERLUDE

Jesuits he charged with violating the canons of the ancient church, the conclusions of the doctors of theology, the ancient liberties of the Gallican church, the arrets of the Parlement of Paris, the public law of the French monarchy, and the common good. The conciliabulvm of Trent he rejected as schismatical and heretical as well as illegal from a Gallican standpoint. That the motive for this anti-Romanism was Gallican rather than Protestant is indicated also by the attacks of Etienne Pasquier, who went so far as to argue that the "errors of Loyola" were even more dangerous than those of Luther. Originally this bias may have arisen at least in part from pique at losing his case against the Jesuits this year, but as time went on his opinion was confirmed over and over again, and he did not hesitate to register it in his scholarly masterpiece, the Researches of France. In the view of both of these men the papacy had unquestionably become a revolutionary force. Yet in neither case was this cause for the slightest approval of Protestantism. The year before, Dumoulin had been appalled to find attributed to him a pamphlet defending the resistance of the "innocents" during the late unpleasantness, the first war, and he published a vigorous denial, which he dedicated to Jean de Montluc. Such "seditious and pernicious" views, he declared, such "evil and illicit liberties" were contrary to his entire life of service to the French monarchy. And not long afterward he added specifications to his charges against the Huguenots. Following practically the same line of argument which he had used against the Jesuits, he condemned those of the "so-called reformed religion" as totally subversive. "These pretended ministers or agents of Geneva . . . ," he concluded, have been "sent to overthrow the whole state of France."4 les Jesuites, en date du 24 Mars 1564" (Geneva BPU, MS Fr, 406), signed by Pasquier, Robert, Duvair, Dumesnil. Cf. Ch. XIII, n. 4. 4 "Articles contre les ministres de la religion pretendue reformee," in Opera, V, 62. 171

INTERLUDE On one point there seemed to be agreement on all sides, and that was the irresistible and irreversible force of ideology. Perhaps the best proof of this was the desperate but ultimately vain attempts, by moderate Gallicans as well as by Huguenots, to separate religion and politics (read: the "religious question" and the "civil question"; "those of the religion" and the "rebels"; Huguenots and Malcontents). But no one was deceived, not even lawyers like Hotman who insisted upon the distinction. The infusion of ideology into politics had begun to affect even the cool and unimaginative minds of professional diplomats, who had been forced to revise many of their political assumptions since the days of Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Thus the Venetian ambassador, Marc'Antonio Barbaro, reviewing the five years since the death of Henry II, concluded that there had been an extraordinary change in the kingdom of France.5 "And this great mutation," he wrote, "proceeds from no other source than religion." Among the reasons for the flourishing of heresy, he suggested, were not only its reception by notables and officials of the realm, ecclesiastical and lay, and the failure of the government to punish the errors and crimes of the Huguenots, but also the unfortunate policy of holding public disputations, such as the Colloquy of Poissy. Even those observers who were less interested in religious differences than in the power struggles behind them did not fail to notice the significance and contagious nature of religious enthusiasm. If, as another Venetian ambassador wrote five years later, great men accepted the new opinions in order to overcome their enemies, and if the bourgeoisie did so in order to enrich themselves, the great mass of the people had no such motives; they were simply "led by false opinions." No longer could one dismiss religious ideas as mere "pretexts," as Guicciardini had done a generation before; now they were the very substance of politics. 5 Alberi, ser. i, IV, 159-63; cf. Correro (1569), in Tommaseo (ed.), Relations des ambassadeurs venetiens (Paris, 1838), II, 113.

172

INTERLUDE What made the force of ideology particularly explosive at this time was the fact that public authority was being questioned—and perhaps more important, being resisted— in a very fundamental way. The fact that this was carried on behind a screen of legitimacy in no way detracts from the revolutionary implications of such behavior and indeed testifies to its seriousness. For such were the conventions of sixteenth-century thought. "Protestant" resistance to Charles V had also been justified in essentially constitutional terms, and Calvinists in both France and the Netherlands would follow suit; but the political, social, and intellectual results were shattering nonetheless. The target could not explicitly be the ruler himself; it had to be his evil advisers or the abuses committed in his name. But to speculate on the character of "tyranny," its relations to accepted institutions, and the justifications for resisting it was perhaps more basically "revolutionary" than verbal attacks on institutions and offices as such. This was all the more true when such inquiries were joined to the needs of a large and organized community to which legitimacy was denied, and to the fact of civil war. There was one conspicuously novel element in the demands of religious insurgents in the sixteenth century hardly reconcilable with the traditional notion of authority, namely, "liberty of conscience," which had become practically a motto of the Huguenots. 6 Once again the problem was not theoretical; it was how to secure this liberty in the face of real and institutionalized oppression. Calvin could never countenance active resistance if only because Geneva had become the exclusive context of his political thinking. But Beza was much more closely in touch with his French coreligionists and indeed served Conde as adviser and chaplain during the first civil war; at this time he was already formulating his views about legitimate opposition, al6 For example in the Zanchi affair of the 1550's; often in French pamphlets of the 1560's (MC, IV, 517); also in the 1570's (Reveillematin, p. 23), and by Hotman himself.

173

INTERLUDE though it would be another decade before he would publish them. As for Malcontents like Hotman, they were already committed to resistance, whether they admitted it or not. All along they had been searching for ways to legitimize not only the Huguenot cause, which was inextricably bound up with a "foreign" power, but also the Huguenot drive for political influence, and eventually active opposition to the Guise "tyranny." The transition from de facto to de jure opposition was not too difficult for clever city lawyers like Hotman; and within a decade, after still more appalling experiences with civil war (and the intervening peace, for that matter), this step was to be taken. Such, in very general terms, were the steps in the creation of conscious "resistance theory." In a very profound sense, then, this was an age of ideology. And yet it would be a mistake, even in these overheated times, to assume that the role of religion was determining. If Machiavelli erred in granting too little to the power of ideas, Calvin went too far in the other direction. Machiavelli assumed that men would act in accordance with their self-interest and acquisitive instincts; Calvin demanded that they keep their faith at all costs and under all conditions; but human nature is too flexible to accommodate either extreme—"Machiavellism" on the one hand or absolute fanaticism on the other. The first need of men, especially in times of crisis, is neither power nor salvation; it is survival, a modus vivendi in a literal sense. And in France at this time such a realization was moving some men irresistibly. During these times of religious fanaticism and demonstrative moral outrage, in short, we can see the beginnings of a resurgence of political opportunism. At just this time, in fact, the term "Politique" was emerging to indicate, or rather to stigmatize, anyone willing to compromise on religious matters for the sake of political advantage or even for the public good.7 There was, of course, no longer room 7

De Thou, Historiae sui temporis, VT, 410.

174

INTERLUDE for such compromise as that proposed by the irenists at the Colloquy of Poissy before the wars, but men could still hope for some partial tolerance such as that provided by the edict of Romorantin in 1560; and this indeed became the goal of moderates like the Chancellor L'Hopital, Jean de Montluc, and perhaps Catherine de Medicis herself, who wanted to continue the efforts started at St. Germain in the spring of 1562. Such was the motive behind the edict of Roussillon issued in August of 1564. Unfortunately, to many Frenchmen, Catholics as well as Huguenots, such compromise smacked of an Italian method of political maneuvering, along with the attendant arts of deceit and assassination. Duelling was an honorable procedure, but to murder a man as the Duke of Guise was murdered the previous year, was to kill "in Italian style." 8 Soon this practice would be identified directly with the counsels of the Queen Mother's late paisano Niccolo Machiavelli. These were only some of the connotations which the term "Politique" was accumulating. And yet within a decade, according to the usual evolution of political terminology, this epithet was transformed into a respectable party label. The latter part of the sixteenth century was to be another "age of Machiavelli," certainly if we judge from the extent to which his name was used in vain. But this in itself was sufficient indication that the problems of revolution and political mutability had become the center of attraction.

FRANCE, AUGUST

1564

The troubles which the bourgeois of Paris had reported in 1525 were almost negligible compared to those of the present year. In March, Catherine and her son Charles IX, together with the whole court, began their famous tour of the provinces and were able to see at first hand the destructive effects of the war. The King was carried about to see 8

Henri Estienne, Apologie pour Herodote, ed. P. Ristelhuber (Paris, 1879), I, 353.

175

INTERLUDE

the damage done by the Huguenots, wrote Sir Thomas Smith to Cecil, but the destruction wrought by such Catholics as Jean de Montluc's brother Blaise was at least as remarkable.9 Plundering by soldiers was of course worse than that noted by the bourgeois during the war with Charles V, and crimes of violence had become commonplace. There were numerous reports of image-breaking, grave-ravaging, and priest-killing, and the library of Cluny was pillaged. In some areas, as Castelnau and others observed, agriculture and trade had practically ceased. The plague, too, was much worse than it had been forty years earlier. It had been raging for two years, particularly in the Rhone valley, and it must have seemed like a judgment of God. Hotman noted maliciously that it seemed to follow the Queen Mother and the King on their journey. Lyon was suffering the worst attack in its history when the royal family arrived early in August on the first leg of its itinerary.10 Sir Thomas Smith saw people lying dead and dying in the streets and bodies thrown into the river for lack of burying space, though he added that this did not keep the living from regular attendance at religious services. From Lyon the plague, accompanied by famine, spread south, killing thousands. Another town it visited was Valence, where Hotman then lived. Later this month, probably the day before his fortieth birthday, he must have watched the court come into the stricken city for a two-day visit before moving on to Avignon. In general the French monarchy seemed to be at the lowest point in its history. The feud between Coligny and the Guise family, which blamed him for the murder of the Duke, had intensified the political rivalry. Economic mis9

Smith to Cecil, 21 Oct., 12 July, and August 1564 (CSP, For., Eliz., 754, 75j, 553, 592); Castelnau, Memoires, p. 352. 10 Vita Colinii, p. 40; Catherine, Lettres, II, 219 (n.l.); Jouan, Recueil et discours du voyage du roy Charles IX (Paris, 1566), and in general Pierre Champion, Catherine de Medicis presente a Charles IX son royaume (1^64-1^66) (Paris, 1937). 176

INTERLUDE ery had infected the entire body politic. The King was marvelously in debt, Smith remarked, all men were evilly paid, and the realm was as poor in credit as it was in money. Treason—as the bourgeois had known it and lamented it in the 1520's—had become practically a way of life, though whether its most distinguished representative was Conde or the Guises could hardly be determined. The practice and theory of private leagues had become common, and of course the followings of both Conde and the Guises had long been organized along the lines of private armies. Meanwhile, there was only Catherine de Medicis and her sons to occupy the throne. France seemed suspended between anarchy and matriarchy, as Beza put it.11 Either way it meant chaos. N o doubt it would be going too far to speak of a "general crisis" even if this term had not been preempted for the seventeenth century, but politically the situation certainly seemed to be unprecedented. This is the theme not only of the mushrooming political polemics and jeremiads but of the considered reports of the most detached observers. In 1561 the Venetian ambassador Marino Cavalli shook his head over the grave malady of the kingdom arising from religious disagreements; five years later his successor Correro had become almost as hyperbolic as the most despairing pamphleteer. "One may find many conspiracies against princes, kings, and emperors," he wrote, "but when a kingdom as large as France rises up together in a single hour, when the King, his mother, and his brothers are suddenly exposed to the danger of losing both their crown and their lives, this is unheard of in history." 12 It was in such a world—a world of hunger, disease, fanaticism, hatred, and apparently permanent revolution— that Hotman reached his fortieth birthday. Personally he was enjoying great success, yet it is unlikely that he felt much elation. He certainly hoped for peace, but it was not 11 12

Beza to Bullinger, 15 Apr. 1564 (Beza, 317). Alberi, ser. 1, IV, 163.

177

INTERLUDE the peace that Catherine was willing to buy at almost any price, nor the peace sought by that "devil of a Guise." Most probably his expectations matched those of Machiavelli over a half-century before, quoting the prophetic words of Savonarola (himself quoting St. Paul).18 "Peace! Peace!" everyone was crying. "And there shall be no peace." 13

178

To Francesco Vettori, 26 Aug. 1513.

VIII.

T O G A AND S W O R D

VALENCE-BOURGES,

1563-1571

"Two arts are necessary for the maintenance of a republic . . . , one the science of war, the other of peace and of law." Hotman, 1560 V A L E N C E , 28 D E C E M B E R

1563

Now IN his fortieth year, Francois Hotman had returned to the safety, so he hoped, of the academy. Before settling into his new position at the University of Valence, he had passed through Lyon with the brother of his good friend Henri de Mesmes and had stopped there to visit other old friends. Already he had plunged into his scholarly work and just the day before had signed the dedication, addressed to the Chancellor de l'Hopital, of his book on the Twelve Tables.1 And once again he returned to the classroom. The university was just recovering from a disastrous period. The Reformation had come to the city in the late 1550's, when the chair of law was occupied by Jacques Cujas, who had since returned to Bourges to replace Le Douaren, dead since 1559. A clandestine Calvinist school, organized from Geneva and providing religious instruction for small children, had alarmed the city authorities, and so had the preachers sent to encourage the movement, including Pierre Brule from Metz and Giles Soular from Montpellier.2 Protected to some extent by the liberal bishop, Jean de Montluc, "those of the religion" became bolder and, according to the normal pattern, progressed from private to 1 Letter to Henri de Mesmes, 28 Dec. 1563 (Paris BN, Lat. 10327, f. 150', and ed. Dareste, RHDFE, I [1853], 493); dedication of De Legibus XII Tabulartem to L'Hopital, 27 Dec. 1563. 2 Nadal, Histoire de I'universite de Valence (Valence, 1861), pp. 54ff.

179

T O G A AND S W O R D public assemblies. As usual, the students were the most vulnerable and excitable. In order to prevent a serious outbreak, classes were suspended in May 1560. The school remained closed for three years and was reopened only at the end of the first war of religion (April 1563). Hotman arrived, then, at a time of rebuilding. Even at its most prosperous the school, including the law faculty, was hardly in the front rank of French universities, but it was growing perceptibly, especially after the closing of the University of Grenoble in 1565. The two schools were merged upon recommendation of a commission of which Hotman was a member. In 1566 there were ten graduates of the law school, one of them a German, and the number continued to increase. At one point Hotman was obliged to find housing for them in the city. By 1568, when he left, soon to be replaced by Cujas, there were twenty or more. On the other hand, the quality of the students evidently left something to be desired. Cujas complained that the boys in his classes would rather play tennis than read their textbooks. It may be that Cujas' standards were unusually high and that he compared these students with such outstanding disciples as Pierre Pithou and Antoine Loisel, whom he had taught at Bourges, but Hotman does not seem to have been more favorably impressed. Most of all he was distressed at the intellectual conservatism of the faculty, which continued to teach law (at the Bishop's behest) in the old Bartolist fashion. Only Hotman himself clung to the humanistic approach and passed it on to at least one of his students, his eldest son Jean, who took his law degree at Valence, like his father before he was sixteen years old. As for his domestic life, it appears that neither Hotman nor his wife was entirely satisfied with Valence, despite their initial optimism, and much of this discontent may be traced to confessional expectations. More immediately threatening was the presence of the plague, which had broken out at the beginning of the first war and had lasted in the Rhone valley through 1564. And with it the plague 180

T O G A AND SWORD brought food shortages and famine, which apparently continued for some time. It seems that Mme. Hotman took rather exaggerated precautions to insure that her own family, including one new arrival, Pierre, born in 1565, did not suffer. On 6 August a complaint was lodged against her for hoarding. She had bought a "great mass of grain in several markets, and at one of them had allegedly taken all that was left, leaving the poor people in danger of starvation."3 Questioned by a consul of the town, she demanded, "Whom do you think you are speaking to? I don't know you at all." When her shopping bags were opened, she became enraged, and told the man to come home with her. Asked for what reason, she retorted, "Not to give you a drink of fresh water." "I'm not thirsty anyway," answered the man, "and I don't want a drink." "You will come with me whether you like it or not," she continued, "and anyone else who interferes." It must have been an embarrassing situation for Professor Hotman. Less than a week later he wrote a letter to the Governor of Dauphine, Msr. de Gordes, about "the seditious outrage which has been done to me and to my wife."4 He admitted that the occasion of the conflict was the buying of grain, but he charged that the trouble-maker—le seditieux, whoever he was—had himself tried to monopolize the sale of grain in order to raise the price. Behind the controversy, unmistakably, was the religious issue, and Hotman insisted that the Catholics were to blame. So he demanded redress both from the Governor and from the Bishop, who he knew was favorable to him. The authorities were practically all from the other party, and Hotman wanted guarantees against their committing any more "outrages behind the pretext of religion." He also got some of 3

"Deliberation consulaire," 6 Aug. 1566, published in Nadal, Histoire, pp. 60-62. Cf. Hotman to Stuckius, 3 July 1582 (Ep n o ) . *To Bertrand Rambaud de Gordes, 12 Aug. 1566 (Chantilly, ser. K, VI, f. 216, copy in Geneva MHR). 181

T O G A AND SWORD his students to petition on his behalf. Just how this affair turned out there is no telling, but it could not have made the Hotmans feel very much at home. At the end of 1566 Hotman wrote to Henri de Mesmes about this unpleasant episode, "the author of which is not unknown to you," he added mysteriously. There had been other distasteful occurrences, including an equally mysterious encounter with a Spanish double agent whom he immediately suspected and warned Beza about. The Hotmans were surrounded, it seems, by chicanery, idolatry, and usury. "We hate Valence," he declared, "and my wife wants to go back to her own people." 5 Hotman had one other grievance which may have outweighed the rest. He had been a counselor of princes; now he was only the second professor of law, after Pierre Loriol, and his salary was only 1,000 livres. This was 200 livres less than Cujas, and Hotman wanted parity with his rival, though he never received it. At the same time, he was trying to recover his French fief by legal means and in fact had hired Cujas' first disciple, Pierre Pithou, for this purpose. He had no luck at all in this, nor was there any longer a chance of returning to Strasbourg (of which he had recently resigned his citizenship in any case). But finally his high connections presented a means of escape. In the fall of 1566 he was offered a position at the University of Bourges, by now undoubtedly the leading center of legal studies in France, if not in the world. He took over "Cujas' place" and would be rewarded with the "large stipend" he had demanded.6 This was the high point of his professional career. At this time it would hardly be an exaggeration to call him the leading jurist of his generation in France, at least until 5

To De Mesmes, 31 Dec. 1566 (Paris BN, Lat. 10327, f. 143'); to Beza (Beza, 321). 6 Briefe von Andreas Masius, ed. M. Lossen (Leipzig, 1886), pp. 378, 390, from Heinrich von Camphusen, 23 Oct. 1566, and 28 June 1567; Hotman to the Council of Strasbourg, 15 Nov. 1565 (Strasbourg AST, No. 345, f. 288')·

182

T O G A AND

SWORD

Cujas returned from Turin to take Hotman's place at Valence. VALENCE,

ΙΟ APRIL

1566

Hotman had another reason for being dissatisfied with his life in this little university town, and this was its proximity to Italy. He felt the evil influence most direcdy in his pro­ fessional work. "We are occupied less with interpreting civil law than with counteracting the sophistical inventions of the practitioners of law and, so to speak, with cleaning the Augean stables of law," he wrote to Henri de Mesmes. "Since the people of Dauphine have long accepted, under the guise of civil law, certain rules of chicanery borrowed from Italy, we are forced to discuss questions which pertain to their courts, such as those examined in the decisions of Guy Pape, not a Delphic but merely a Delphinal Apollo. This practice the Bishop encourages with all his might." Later Hotman would spend some effort cleaning up after Guy Pape and such previous defilers as "Christopher Pig" (Porcras is the correct spelling).7 This complaint brings us to a subject which has been neglected too long in this story, namely, Hotman's work as a scholar. With all his other activities, public and clandes­ tine, Hotman managed to produce an incredible amount of legal writing—more than a book a year for the previous decade—and was, at least in terms of time spent, more de­ voted to his legal than to his religious calling. Though high­ ly technical and often tedious, his legal scholarship is in some ways the most crucial aspect of his mental develop­ ment, for it was here that thought and action, the life con­ templative and the life active, converged most visibly. It is customary to distinguish two schools of jurispru­ dence in the sixteenth century, a scholastic tradition based 7

To De Mesmes, Lyon, 10 Apr. 1566 (Paris BN, Lat. 10327, f. 145"); prefatory letter to De Feudis to Justus Reuber, 1 Mar. 1573. 183

T O G A AND SWORD on an "Italian method" (mos italicus) and concerned with practical application, and an innovating humanist school based on a "French method" (mos gallicus) and concerned with philological criticism. The first, whose eponymous hero was the fourteenth-century jurist Bartolus, was obviously dominant at Valence; the second, fathered by Alciato, was in power at Bourges. In 1567 Hotman, no doubt influenced by the fact that he had just moved from the first of these universities to the second, made just such a distinction: "In our universities now," he declared, "there are two kinds and as it were parties of legists. One is called pettifoggers, Bartolists, and barbarians; the other humanists, purists, and grammarians."8 Both agreed that ancient law was relevant to modern problems, but over the problem of method there were continuous battles throughout the century. Yet as Hotman's own case clearly illustrates, such a distinction is by no means adequate for the understanding of jurisprudence in this, the golden age of legal science. Although he scorned the chicanery of the Italian school, he was profoundly influenced by its method of arguing and of applying civil law to practical problems. Although few jurists made more significant contributions to the "grammatical" study of civil law, he ultimately had little sympathy for such pedantry, and it does not seem proper to admit him, as did so many of his contemporaries, into the "historical school of law." If the first of these schools seemed to regard law as a mechanical practice, the second elevated it to the position of a liberal art. But neither view was in keeping with Hotman's exalted conception of his professional calling. Eight years earlier, Hotman had made a more comprehensive statement of the "office of the jurisconsult." First he recognized the practicing lawyers (pragmatici), though mainly to dismiss them, with typical academic snobbery, as "men whom Cicero called mean and mercenary." As for the 8

Anti-Tribonian, p. 120.

184

T O G A AND SWORD

true jurists, Hotman continued, "I make a threefold distinction in the method of interpreting law. first that of the grammarian, second that of the dialectician, and third that of the jurisconsult."9 The first included literary and historical analysis of civil law and applied especially to the making of critical editions, to pedagogical works, and to the writing of history. The second consisted either in logical analysis or synthesis, that is, in breaking topics down into their constituent parts (partitiones) or in assembling scattered texts having to do with the same subject; and it was generally utilitarian, whether for purposes of pedagogy or for legal reform. The last pertained to the true purpose of jurisprudence, "the art of the good and the just" in Ulpian's phrase, and consisted in the actual improvement of society through legal philosophy. In fact Hotman's work spanned and often combined all four of these categories. Unlike Beza, Hotman had not turned completely against the old-fashioned scholastic method of teaching law at the University of Orleans. Though he might reject the particular opinions of the Bartolists, he never gave up their habits of thought and especially their respect for "authority." This conservatism was no doubt reinforced by the many years he spent teaching law on an elementary level; for even the most avant-garde humanist, even Cujas, agreed that the beginning student had to memorize his maxims and to read the Gloss before plunging into the original sources. But beyond that Hotman was from the beginning engaged in practical jurisprudence. In assembling the apparatus for his commissioned briefs (consilia) he could be as repetitious and authoritarian as the most hidebound Bartolist—and in debating particular quaestiones as "sophistical." Nor was he worried about the anachronisms involved in applying ancient law to such modern problems as usury, the law of succession, and to a variety of constitutional issues. This utilitarian bent was obviously intensified by his uncounted, 9 furisconsultus, sive de Optimo genere iuris interpretandi, p. 34 (Op P, 1088).

185

T O G A AND S W O R D

indeed uncountable, polemics written on behalf of the Huguenot cause. Hotman's first expeditions into legal scholarship had been the product of his post-graduate reading in the Corpus Juris Justiniani and what little teaching he had been able to do in Paris. Ostensibly "the Emperor's law" had been forbidden there since the early fourteenth century, but in fact lectures were permitted within the faculty of canon law. More specifically, as we have seen, Hotman's first two major works had been inspired by his incipient rivalry with Baudouin, his colleague at the university—that is, by his desire to establish the priority of his work to that published by Baudouin.10 Neither his implied charge of plagiarism nor his indiscreet use of Baudouin's confessional pseudonym, "Petrus Rochius," could have strengthened their friendship, but it did help to inaugurate Hotman's own career. In general these books, both commentaries on a title of the Institutes, showed his mastery of modern scholarship (Bude, Haloander, Alciato, et al.) as well as the classics and a modish prejudice against Accursius' Gloss, which had long been under fire by humanists. They showed also Hotman's familiarity with canon law; and in this case, very likely under Dumoulin's influence, familiarity bred contempt. An even wider range of knowledge was displayed in Hotman's third major book, which was a discussion of the law of usury, a topic abundantly dealt with by Dumoulin in 1546, five years earlier.11 Remarkable, too, was the flexibility of its method and the subtlety of its analysis, and here we can see how Hotman managed to combine the new and the old approaches to law. He was certainly interested in historical questions, such as "what mode of usury was formerly instituted by the Romans," and indeed the substance of his critique was a mosaic of citations, chiefly from civil law. Yet his primary purpose was to solve the many current problems of economics, law, equity, and morality associated 10 11

186

See Ch. II, n. 38 above. De Usuris (Op P, 741); cf. Ch. II, n. 27 above.

T O G A AND SWORD

with money-lending and money-changing; and he did this very much in the style of Bartolus, by combining ancient rules, modern experience, and close argumentation. Like Dumoulin, he recognized the hidden difficulties due to inflation as well as such obvious factors as duration of time, use, and risk. On these grounds he justified reasonable interest, both here and in many later commentaries, consultations, and disputations. His position was taken, of course, while "in the shadow of Calvin." What he did, in general, was to bring this topic into line with Calvinist doctrine by means of the specialized apparatus of civil law. During his half-dozen years at Strasbourg, Hotman was busy with propaganda, diplomacy, and intrigue as well as teaching, but he still managed to indulge his literary ambitions, intensified perhaps by Baudouin's earlier successes. His extensive correspondence with publishers is filled with plans and problems concerning books projected and in progress. Among the books which he issued at this time were a very popular textbook, the Partitions of Civil Law, which went through five editions in his lifetime, and a group of reference works, including short biographies of Justinian and various civilians, ancient and medieval, an index of particular Roman laws, and alphabetically arranged dictionaries of Roman offices and legal teminology. (It is curious that of all of Hotman's controversial works, only his legal dictionary, the Commentary on the Words of Law, achieved a place on the papal Index.)12 These works, too, were often revised and reprinted. Hotman used them in his teaching, and no doubt they added substantially to his income, if not to his prestige. Hotman's Partitions, and his first little publication, the Table of Crimes of 1543, offer good examples of the dialectical approach to law. Both are "analytical," aimed at the 12 Document published by A. Rotondo, "Nuovi document! per la storia dell'Indice dei libri proibiti (1572-1638)," Rinascimento, III (1963), 154. Cf. Ch. IV, n. 23 above. For works of Hotman mentioned here see the bibliography listed in Sources.

187

T O G A AND SWORD

rational organization rather than historical understanding of legal material. The Partitions is little more than an elementary textbook, arranged according to a question-andanswer method and following exactly the design of Justinian's Institutes. A dialectical method is evident in other works, for example his Africanus of 1555, which was an explication of a very involved passage in the Digest having to do with the recovery of money for a debt between two brothers after their father's death. Twice afterwards Hotman went over the same ground, once in the book dedicated to Montluc in 1564 and again nine years later in answer to an attack by Cujas. He discussed many other questions of interest, indebtedness, inheritance, testaments, and the like, and published them in various collections; and at the same time he began to accumulate commissioned consilia, which he brought out in 1569. In such works and even in many of his "emendations" of civil law Hotman seemed less a philologist than a dialectician—less a grammaticus than a scholasticus, or even a pragmaticus. It is true, of course, that Hotman did crave and achieve some fame as a philologist. For a long time he was literally a grammaticus, having taught letters, the "trivial" subjects, at Lausanne for six years. Throughout his life, moreover, he was a proficient and productive classical scholar—a translator (of the Greek texts in the Digest and Code, for example, and of Plato's Apology for Socrates), an editor (of Caesar, Cicero, and Cicero's commentator Asconius Pedianus), and most important, of all, a textual critic. Much of this work consisted simply in improving the texts of the classics, whether by manuscript study (especially the legendary Florentine codex of the Digest, finally published in 1553), by historical criticism, by his knowledge of ancient law, or by conjectural emendation. Beginning at least with the Africanus, Hotman began to watch for corrupt passages, especially in the Digest. Following the lead of Baudouin once again, he joined enthusiastically in that hunt for 188

T O G A AND SWORD

interpolations—"Tribonianisms" he would later call them— which was so popular a sport among philologists. A classic example was the Digest title "On the origin of laws" excerpted from Pomponius' handbook of the same name. "Of this law," Hotman wrote with his characteristic exaggeration, "almost half is not by Pomponius but rather by Tribonian or some even less skilled man, as is evident from the dissimilarity of the style as well as the facts of history."13 Yet the mantle of the disinterested scholar, the "pure grammarian," worn so naturally by Cujas, did not fit Hotman at all. "What does this have to do with the Pretorian Edict?" is the question often attributed to Cujas. "What does the Pretorian Edict have to do with us?" would be a much better expression of Hotman's attitude. The best proof of this is the novel twist which, as we shall see, Hotman was about to give this "anti-Tribonianist" tradition just referred to. Even Hotman's historical interests in jurisprudence had a practical basis. This is clear in the case of his pedagogical works, including the life of Justinian, the reference works on Roman laws and offices, and in his little sketch entitled The Part of Universal History pertaining to Civil Law, which was merely a chronology of imperial history from Caesar to Justinian. But it is also true in part of such antiquarian works as his reconstruction of the laws of the Twelve Tables. Although once again he was following in the footsteps of Baudouin, Hotman's attitude was markedly different. Both men favored an alliance between law and history in order to distinguish between "old law" and "new law," that is, between obsolete law and authoritative law; but whereas Baudouin became increasingly interested in legal history, Hotman was concerned more with salvaging what still had practical value. Citing Justinian's own words, he declared that his purpose was "not to discourse on old fables but to seek imperial splendor." In his gloss on this statement Hotman explained that Justinian was refer18

Africanus, last page (unpaginated) (Op I1, 1028).

189

TOGA AND SWORD

ring to "laws that were abrogated and politically obsolete."14 What Hotman derived from the study of ancient law, in short, was not so much a "sense of history" as a sense of relevance. As Hotman himself saw it, his standards of thought and action were the very quintessence of jurisprudence; he was in truth a "priest of the laws." In his profession he saw not only the glory of the Roman Empire but also the greatest hope of Christendom and the highest expression of the human spirit. "The great extent of the Roman Empire," he declared in an early work, "was the result not of the arts of war but rather of the sanctity of the laws and skill in public administration"; and elsewhere he remarked that greater honor was reflected on Justinian by Tribonian than by Belisarius.15 This theme—arma cedant togae—runs through many of Hotman's works and reached its most comprehensive statement in the Jurisconsult of 1559, a classic statement of the union of eloquence, philosophy, and civic commitment that civil law embodied. It is in this very general sense that Hotman may be regarded as a "legal humanist." To civil law, as he suggested in his commentaries on Cicero, nothing was alien. What was most important to Hotman, especially after his own political conscience had been awakened, was the fact that jurisprudence, unlike philosophy and most other disciplines, was directed not at private edification but at public service and so came the closest of all secular sciences to approximating the ancient ideal of humanitas. As Hotman had recommended in his very first work, "Good men who have the welfare of their state at heart should imitate Roman laws"; and he never changed this view—except that he eventually 14

Commentarius in quatuor libros Institutionum, in tit. (Op II1, 1). Baudouin, Justinianus, sive de jure novo (Paris, 1559); and Commentarii in libros quatuor Institutionum (Paris, 1554), including an historical prolegomenon. 15 Tabula de criminibus, f. 4*; Justiniani vita; Commentarius verborum juris, "Lectori." 190

T O G A AND SWORD

had to put his particular religious "cause" above his state. To Hotman, in short, the jurisconsult represented not only a professional type but the highest idea of humanism. Perhaps Francois Baudouin, his worst enemy, made the point best: "Homo politicus, that is to say, jurisconsultus."1* BOURGES, 13 APRIL

1567

Fleeing from the popery and chicanery of Dauphine, Hotman had at last come to this, the greatest of all French law schools, indeed "the first in Europe," as he told his new patroness Marguerite of Savoy. He had arrived just a short time before, as usual after visiting Lyon, where he had arranged for the publication of the revised edition of his major work, the Commentaries on the Institutes, and he was now signing the dedication addressed to the Elector of Saxony.17 Although Hotman had also written a book on the "sacrament of the eucharist," one of his few ventures into theology, there is no doubt that his principal occupation continued to be jurisprudence. He was also more content with his students, especially those, he told the Elector, who had come all the way from Germany to study with him. It was because of these students that he turned increasingly to feudal law. Hotman's first stay in Bourges was very short, scarcely five months, and as usual the reason for his departure was religious ferment, which had never ceased to disrupt this university. During the summer an angry crowd of Catholics drove Hotman out of his quarters in Marguerite's hotel and pillaged his library. Hotman fled with a group of students, including Caspar von Seydlitz.18 He went to Paris, where he 16

Commentarius de jurisprudentia Muciana (15J9) (Halle, 1729),

p. 20. 17 Dedications of Institutions (2nd edn.), 1 Apr. 1567, and Disputationes, 23 July 1568. 18 To Stuckius, 28 June 1583 (Ep 127); dedication of De Feudis to Seydlitz, Bourges, 1 June 1572.

191

T O G A AND SWORD took refuge with the Chancellor de l'Hopital, who was a protector of the University of Bourges and a patron of Hotman for the past five years. If we can believe Hotman's seventeenth-century biographer Nevelet, he was given an appointment as royal historiographer with a stipend of 800 crowns. He also visited the royal library again, and it was most likely at this point that he began his serious study of the antiquities of France, though we have all too little information about his activities at this time and indeed for the next five years. Besides his work on feudal law, or rather parallel to it, Hotman began to examine "the state of the ancient Gallic republic," which was eventually published as the Franco-Gallia. His one completed work, closely related to these two, was his Anti-Tribonian, addressed to and apparently commissioned by that "Solon" of France, L'Hopital, in the late summer of 1567. Though published only posthumously, this was one of Hotman's most famous and most influential works. According to Gibbon, Hotman's purpose was "to mortify Cujacius and to please L'Hopital," but Gibbon had not read the Anti-Tribonian. This discourse, representing the confluence of many of Hotman's professional and ideological interests, extended far beyond the intermural squabbles of the legal profession. Hotman's purposes were manifold: philological (continuing the critique of "Tribonianisms" in a technical sense); historical (tracing the reception of the "Justinianic law" in later times); pedagogical (showing the irrelevance both of the "scholastic doctors" and of the "humanists"); sociological (discussing the extent to which foieign laws can be transplanted to other societies); and finally, coming to the area of L'Hopital's particular interest, reformist (considering the ways of making French law more uniform and equitable). It is a pivotal book that illustrates the fusion of Hotman's activist and academic tendencies, his mature view of the "office of the jurisconsult," and the beginnings of a coherent view of history and of the 192

T O G A AND SWORD

relations between law and society; and it is, or should be, a landmark in the history of social and historical thought. According to Gibbon, Hotman was the founder of the "anti-Tribonianist" sect, but this is somewhat misleading too. In fact this tradition was at least a century old, going back to Lorenzo Valla, who likewise deplored Tribonian's editorial policy and (though less vehemently) religious infidelity. But Hotman did popularize and transform anti-Tribonianism, and he found disciples. His starting point was very much the same as Valla, Bude, and (among others) Baudouin before him. "Since the time when good letters opened the eyes and minds of men," he wrote, "it has been discovered that Tribonian falsely mixed in not only two or three words of his own, but also lines and even whole pages, as in the second law of the Digest, 'on the origin of laws,' which is obviously only inventions of Tribonian misattributed to Pomponius."19 And he went on to describe the seven kinds of interpolations by which Tribonian had transformed the "old law" of Rome into the "new law" of Byzantium. It was to the task of correcting Tribonian's bungling that the grammarians had devoted themselves, and Hotman was among the first of these. Yet in the Anti-Tribonian Hotman was critical of such pedantry and of the idolatry which made the Florentine manuscript into "a holy relic showed only rarely by torch19 Anti-Tribonian, p. 96; cf. n. 13 above. On this, J. Baron, Franz Hotmanris Antitribonian (Bern, 1888); P. Mesnard, "Francois Hotman (1524-1590) et le complexe de Tribonien," BSHPF, CI (1955), 117-37; W. Fogel, Franz Hotmann una die Privatrechtswissenschaft (Freiburg, i960); E. Fournol, "Sur quelques traites de droit public au XVIe siecle," RHDFE, ser. 3, XXI (1897), 298-325; J. H. Franklin, Jean Bodin and the Sixteenth-Century Revolution in the Methodology of Law and History (New York, 1963), pp. 46-58; R. Giesey, "When and Why Hotman wrote the Francogallia," Bibliotheque d'humanisme et renaissance, XXIX (1967), 581-611, and other works cited there; more generally, L. Palazzini Finetti, Storia delta ricerca delle interpolazioni nel Corpus Iuris giustinianeo (Milan, 1953).

193

T O G A AND S W O R D

light, as mystagogues formerly showed their treasures."20 He respected the work of Bude, Alciato, Haloander, Antonio Agustin, and others, but it was hardly essential to the calling of the jurist. In general, he thought, "the books of Justinian contain no source either of the republican state or of the Roman or Constantinopolitan empire, but only a mixture of little pieces of all three forms." Even to understand history, he concluded, one would do better to read the writers of history. In this way Hotman began to cast doubt on the utility of philology and so to disassociate himself from legal humanists like Cujas and Baudouin. At the same time, Hotman had to concede that Justinian's collection had a fantastic success after the barbarian invasions, and especially after Irnerius had established a legal tradition at the University of Bologna in the twelfth century. Once again Hotman related this success story. Like Roman history itself, it began with a miracle (the legendary recovery of the Florentine manuscript), included many conquests (reception of written law into universities, the church, and various European states), and ended with nearly universal domination. But Hotman, of course, was writing from the point of view of a victim; and his thesis was the evil influence of Roman law, that is, Tribonian's version of it, in modern society. So he launched again into an attack on Bartolus and his tribe of "scholastic doctors" for their sophistry and greed and on the humanists for their pedantry and irrelevance. On the whole the effect of civil law had been to multiply suits and to induce "chicanery," and so Hotman began to celebrate the primitive and pure customary law of the countryside, citing to this effect the famous ordinance of Philip IV in 1312, "that not only is his kingdom governed by customary and unwritten law, but also the places where written law have been received are not subject to it."21 And this juridical declaration of independence Hotman illustrated with reference to many legal 20

194

Arti-Tribonian, pp. 124, 21.

21

Ibid., p. 114.

TOGA AND SWORD

topics, including testaments, contacts, and procedure. Under the protective cover of L'Hopital, in short, Hotman had come around to the Gallican position of Dumoulin and indeed of that notorious Guisard Jean du Tillet. It was to justify this iconoclastic view that Hotman gave a new and radical twist to the anti-Tribonianist tradition. The question was inescapable: if the "Justinianic law" had little in common with that of ancient Rome, how much less relevant was it to the customs of the descendants of the Gauls and the Franks? "All monarchies are not governed always and everywhere in the same way," Hotman declared. "Some have a more absolute power, others more limited; some a greater extent, others more restricted; some more military, others more civil offices." The laws and customs varied accordingly. Like L'Hopital, Hotman expressed these social variations in conventional terms of medieval medicine and astrology (that is, the "humors" of people and their climate), but his analysis was grounded thoroughly in the experience of jurisprudence and history. His general conclusion was "that the laws of a country should be accommodated to the state and not the state to the laws . . . , for laws should be established to preserve the republic in its own nature and form as the diet and rule of living is prescribed by a physician for the health of the body."22 In this way Hotman came to a sociological understanding of law and the limits of legal reform. Hotman's first conclusion had to do with pedagogy, and his position was preeminently that of the pragmaticus. "When it is a question of preparing a young man to serve the French government," he concluded, "we should consider which alternative would be more appropriate: the example of Roman or Byzantine magistrates, or that of the officers of the crown and courts of this kingdom; that is, the 22

Ibid., p. 6; cf. L'Hopital, Traite de la reformation de la justice, in Oeuvres inedites, ed. P. Dufey (Paris, 1825), I and II (though there are a number of seventeenth-century interpolations in this work), and in general, R. Filhol, Le premier president Christofle de Thou et la riformation des coutumes (Paris, 1937). 195

T O G A AND SWORD

law of the sovereignty of our kings, of the authority of the Three Estates, of the rights of the Queen, the dauphin, the brothers of the King and their appanages, princes, bastards of the King and his brothers, the constable, peers, and the marshal of France. . . ."23 Hotman's answer to this rhetorical question indicated not only the drift of his interests, which was toward feudal law and medieval history, but also his growing distaste for foreign and especially Italian influences. Finally Hotman got to the main point of his discourse, which was the "hope of some reformation." His recommendation was to cease "that stupid and barbaric custom which has ruled in France for a long time, to render all public acts and instruments into Latin," and to apply more generally that ordinance passed by Francis I in 1539 (on which Dumoulin had written a famous commentary) prohibiting parlementary edicts from being recorded in Latin. He did not want French lawyers to accept the "authority" of civil law, but rather to treat it as Justinian and Tribonian had treated the law of ancient Rome. Most important, and again following the line of argument presented by Dumoulin twenty years before, he expressed hope for a more rational and uniform legal system. "It will be very easy at this time, when it has pleased God to grant our France a Solon in the person of the great Michel de I'Hopital," Hotman concluded, "to bring together a number of jurisconsults, statesmen, and some of the more notable advocates and practitioners of the kingdom, and to charge them with bringing together what they can use in the books of Justinian as well as in the books of philosophy and in experience."24 In the end, then, Hotman seems to have come around completely to the point of view, though not the values, of Bartolus and even of Tribonian himself. Partly through the ideals inherent in jurisprudence, but even more through the 23

Anti-Tribonian, p. 16. lbtd., p. 153; cf. Ch. II, n. 27 above.

u

196

T O G A AND SWORD pressures of his own age and predicament, Hotman at last came to an understanding of the true "office of the jurisconsult." It was not to worship an ancient idol, as the humanists taught, and it was not to serve a foreign master, as the Bartolists taught. Rather it was ultimately to reform and to help unify one's own society. Here we see the final defeat of Hotman the academic at the hands of Hotman the activist. PARIS, 2 OCTOBER

1567

Finishing or having finished his Anti-Tribonian, Hotman was forced to watch reform give way again to revolution— and, to reverse the Ciceronian formula, the toga give way to arms. The second civil war was already underway, and the Huguenots were just now setting about to occupy St. Denis on the outskirts of the city. The beginning of this war and Hotman's departure coincided in point of time; perhaps the two events were not entirely unconnected. During the summer another of those Huguenots conspiracies had been brewing. A number of meetings had been held by Conde, Coligny, D'Andelot, and other Huguenot leaders to discuss recent problems. Still hoping to revenge his brother's death, the Cardinal of Lorraine continued his Machiavellian plans, seeking assistance, as one pamphleteer put it, "from both the lion and the fox."25 But added now to old feelings of persecution was a mounting anxiety about the Spanish threat. This fear arose first from the suspicious conference held in 1565 between Catherine de Medicis and the Duke of Alba at Bayonne (which Protestants from the beginning believed to be the scene of a conspiracy, so implicitly in fact that they fabricated documents in support of their thesis), then from the mission of 25

Bref discours et veritable des principales coniurations de ceux de la maison de Guyse (n.p., 1565; LN 407). Cf. Les Requeues, protestations, remonstrances et advertissemens, faits par . . . Conde (Orleans, 1567; Lb."3 206) and Discours au way des conseils et moyens qu'on a tenus pour exterminer la pure doctrine . . . (Heidelberg, 1568), f. DiiT, including a forged letter from a papal agent.

197

T O G A AND SWORD

Alba to the Netherlands, and now most recently from the news that Egmont and Hoorne had been arrested. Under pressure of such suspicions a decision was taken to stage an uprising at the end of September. This was a well-kept secret, but it seems unlikely that Hotman was unaware of the project. He may even have been involved, as he had been five years before, in preparing the new justification for Conde's actions, which appeared in October.26 Whether or not this "conspiracy of Meaux" was connected with his departure from Bourges, Hotman was certainly not as surprised as Catherine affected to be when hostilities broke out. It was the same old story. Once again the Huguenot churches functioned as part of the intelligence system; once again the target was Paris, and especially the court; once again Orleans, after its capture by La Noue, was the headquarters; and once again Hotman went there immediately to offer his services to Conde. He acted as advisor and diplomatic agent until the peace of Longjumeau was signed in March 1568, and probably afterwards, since he remained in Orleans during the summer. The situation was too dangerous, he hinted in a letter to Marguerite, for him to return to Bourges. His judgment was right; the peace was as short as it was precarious. Negotiations were carried on between the Huguenot leaders and Geneva through Nicolas Barnaud, later a fellow propagandist of Hotman, and as a result Beza tried to find support in Switzerland, principally from Zurich. But on 24 August, Bullinger told Beza that this was impossible, and nothing came of the attempt to enlist Swiss mercenaries. This of course did not deflect the course of events in France. The day before (which was Hotman's fortyfourth birthday) the Prince of Conde issued a second statement of justification and that same evening set out with his brother Coligny for La Rochelle, which was becoming the 2e

Discours veritable des propos terms par monsieur le prince de Conde (n.p., 1567; LN 505). Many of these events are surveyed by Hotman himself in his Vita Colinii and De Furoribus gallicis.

198

TOGA AND SWORD

center of resistance. Their journey, as Hotman himself later described it, was little short of miraculous. Near Sancerre they found a ford across the river. Barely three hours later the river flooded, cutting off pursuit. A little more than a week later they entered La Rochelle, and so began the third war of religion.27 Whether or not Hotman had anything personally to do with it, the Huguenot propaganda of the second and third wars certainly reflected his views and was, in fact, little more than a rehash, a somewhat more inflammatory rehash, of the arguments which Hotman had helped to formulate in 1562. Once again the Cardinal of Lorraine was singled out as one who wanted to "subvert the French state," this time for the benefit of Spain. Once again there were calls for a meeting of the Estates General, and again a counterattack by Jean du Tillet. Once again, too, neo-feudal overtones were clearly perceptible, most notably in the references to the rebeuion just a century before by the League of the Common Weal ("les Reformateurs du bien public," as one pamphlet calls them).28 The most conspicuous difference was the virulence of attacks against foreign influence —by those who frankly admitted that "we in France have accepted two forms of religion"; by those who blamed everything on "the Calvinist school and the dark and infernal grotto of Geneva"; by those who deplored the proliferation of "Italian bankers and usurers"; and those who, borrowing a term from Rabelais, assailed the growing "pa27

Vita Colinii, p. 41. The pamphlet is Lettres et requestes envoyez au roy (La Rochelle, 1568; LN 564); cf. Bullinger to Beza, 24 Aug. (Zurich SA, E.II.342, f. 554% cited in Geneva MHR, mimeographed Inventaire of Beza correspondence); and in general R. M. Kingdon, Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement 1564-1572 (Geneva, 1967), p. 186. 28 Memoires des occasions de la guerre, appellee le bien public, rapportez a I'estat de la guerre presente (n.p., 1567; LN 550), p. 9; Sommaire discours . . . sur les moyens que tient le cardinal de Lorraine . . . (La Rochelle, 1568); LN 637); Du Tillet, Advertissement envoye a la noblesse de France (Paris, 1574), permission dated 6 Nov. 1568.

199

T O G A AND S W O R D pemania" rampant in France. As one pamphleteer com­ plained, "By their subtleties and by the money they have taken from the poor, the Italians have gained such credit at court that by contrast Frenchmen themselves seem to be the foreigners. 29 This is precisely what Hotman was feeling at this time. SANCERRE, SPRING

1569

This was a low point, perhaps the lowest point so far, in Hotman's life.30 "For almost forty years I have been pur­ sued, tormented, and tossed about," he lamented, "but I do not remember ever having suffered as much as now. Mirac­ ulously snatched from the murderous hands of my enemies, having lost my belongings and books, burdened with seven children, exiled and destitute, seeking refuge in this poorly fortified place, I saw the day coming when we were be­ sieged. Soon the enemy arrived. At dawn the disguised sol­ diers approached the gates of the town and, with the help of an ambush, tried to penetrate. W e were delivered from this attack by the courage of a handful of citizens and by the goodness of God. "At the same time," he continued, "my wife, along with an eight-day-old child she had just delivered, almost dead with fright, saw it die. She herself was stricken with a seri­ ous illness from which she recovered only after several months. And added to this were the terrible fires of civil war raging in France, my dear country, which would hardly be extinguished in three years, for one could foresee that only the ruin of the kingdom would put an end to it." It was for this reason that Hotman was turning to the Bi­ ble and to St. Augustine, the only two books left to him, for 2a

Articles des plaintes et dolecmces du peuple (n.p., 1567; LN 503), f. xvi. Cf. Response de monseigneur le prince de Conde . . . (n.p., 1567; LN 509), f. BiiT; Remonstrance au peuple de Paris . . . (Paris, 1568; LN 560), f. 22r; Exhortation a la paix (n.p., 1568; U N 571), f. Biiir; and La Vapemanie de France (n.p., 1567; Ars. 8° Η. 1277410). 30 Consolatio, "praefatio." Castelnau.

200

T O G A AND SWORD

solace. The result, his Consolation Drawn from Holy Scripture, was a commentary not on Roman but on Jewish national experience, hence on universal history not ab urbe but ab orbe condita. For Hotman, during this period of trials, identified himself with a long-suffering and yet chosen people. When the third war broke out in September 1568, Huguenot morale was high, and so was the rate of enlistment. Between La Rochelle and Geneva, however, there were only a few towns that were safe. Refugees from Orleans went to nearby Vozelay, Beza's home town, or to Sancerre. Hotman was in the latter group and arrived probably in October. Set high on a hill overlooking the Loire, this little town seemed easily defensible but unfortunately no preparations had been made—which, in fact, was the reason why the King's men had not tried to take it over before hostilities began. To make up for this oversight, Catholic forces under Martinengo maintained a siege for six weeks beginning in December. Two major assaults were repulsed, and there were other skirmishes. By February the enemy had been driven off. This was probably Hotman's first direct contact with war; he had a taste both of its hardships and of its satisfactions. Except for these few reflections, little is known about Hotman's activities during this two-year war. Altogether he spent 31 months in Sancerre and another 7 months in La Charite, another Huguenot stronghold and dependency of Sancerre a few miles further south. Toward the end of the war, as Hotman later recalled, the unfortunate Huguenot army split up, part going to each of the two refuges.31 Among the Protestants the greatest figure was now Admiral Coligny, whose exploits and misfortunes Hotman later chronicled. His international renown was enhanced during the third war, when he was officially condemned by the Parlement and deprived of his offices. According to this arret, which was published in eight languages and widely 81

Vita Colinii,- p. 98. To Lipsius, 8 May 1579 (Ep 80). 201

T O G A AND S W O R D distributed, the Admiral was declared "giltie of traison, distourber and breaker of peace, ennemy of repos, and tranquillitie of the commonwealth: the Captain, author, and ringleder of the rebellion, conspiracie, and faction that hath bin made against the King and his State." 3 2 After his assas­ sination these charges would be repeated and the arret it­ self republished. During the year 1570 Coligny lost his brothers D'Andelot and Conde but himself enjoyed spectacular military suc­ cess, when he swept through Guyenne to the Rhone and then moved on toward Paris. These gains were largely nul­ lified, however, by the peace signed at St. Germain on 8 Au­ gust 1570. This was the famous "limping and uneasy peace" (paix boiteuse et malassise) concluded by Hotman's old friend Henri de Mesmes and Biron (who happened to be called Le Boiteux and Sieur de Malassise repectively). The Huguenots would have another way of describing it: the peace whose parent was the Cardinal, that "devil of a Guise dressed in the habit of a pretended priest," aided by Ca­ therine de M6dicis, that "noble whore, whose blood was in­ fected by Italian buggers." 3 3 But this was in retrospect. In the meantime, the Hugue­ nots could make their way back to the few towns where a certain liberty of religious profession was permitted. And Hotman in particular could return to Bourges to resume his scholarly labors. BOURGES, 5 DECEMBER Ι 57 Ι

"Of all the universities of France ours is the best ordered," boasted Hotman, "no doubt because of the religion of the three doctors, for we all profess the true worship of God 82 Arrest de la Court de Parlement contre Gaspart de Coligny . . . (Paris, 1569) (28 Sept.), with succeeding versions in French, Latin, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, English, and Scottish. 83 L e Reveille-matin des frangois ("Edinburgh" [Basel?], 1574); this passage appears in an introductory sonnet.

202

T O G A AND SWORD

and offer to young people the example of a well-ordered life, and the majority of those attached to the true religion send us their children." He had not forgotten the horrors of the past few years, he added, "but the restoration of our churches is a marvelous thing . . . , and many who abandoned their faith to avoid the persecution of our enemies now come back to be reconciled with their churches."84 Hotman was finally enjoying the rewards of years of legal study and gaining recognition as one of the leading jurists of Europe. He had arrived in the fall of 1570, when the university was reopened. Although not as impressive as it had been in the days of Alciato, or of Le Douaren, or of Cujas, whom Hotman succeeded, the law faculty still had Hugues Doneau, Le Douaren's chief disciple, Antoine Le Conte, a relative of Calvin (though still a Catholic), and Francois Bouguier. The other two Protestants mentioned by Hotman were Doneau and probably Bouguier, who had just been released from prison in July. On the whole Hotman had some reason to hope that the bad times were past. But he was no longer the "jurisconsult" of 1559 (taking that book as a kind of idealized self-portrait) who located his profession in the tradition of moral philosophy. He was a determined partisan, a tested veteran, an experienced revolutionary, and this affected his scholarly career as well. Although he continued to teach civil law, it no longer overawed him or even occupied a particularly central position in his growing arsenal of learning. This attitude was already evident in the Anti-Tribonian, which amounted to a kind of obituary of civil law in France, but now Hotman was beginning to find substitutes for Roman legal science and its standards. And like Dumoulin he found these substitutes in France's own historical tradition. The study of feudal law, which Dumoulin had helped to make respectable, was unavoidable in view of the fact that 34 To Gualter, 5 Dec. 1571, and to Bullinger, 1 Feb. 1572 (Zurich ZB, F. 39, f. 204', and D. i97d, f. 51'). On Bourges at this time, Louis Raynal, Histoire du Berry (Bourges, 1844), III, 427-30.

203

T O G A AND S W O R D

Hotman, like Le Douaren and Cujas before him, had to teach the subject to a growing number of German students, including Caspar von Seydlitz, Albert von Stettin, and Hermann von Haas, as well as his own son Jean. Out of this came his commentary De Feuiis, though he had remarked briefly on the subject while at Strasbourg ten years before. Complementing this were Hotman's continuing studies in French public law and history, including an elaborate set of commentaries on Caesar's Gallic Wars. All this material was going into the making of Hotman's major project, which was a general reassessment of French constitutional history which he would eventually call the FrancoGallia. This book represented the natural culmination of his intellectual interests, and there is no reason to suppose that he meant it to be the bombshell which it eventually turned out to be. For this one other factor was necessary, and history was about to supply it.

204

IX. MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY G E N E V A ,

1572

"Away with him, cut of his head and handes. And send them for a present to the Pope." Christopher Marlowe, The Massacre at Paris "Albeit the world think Machiavel is dead Yet was his soul but flown beyond the Alps...." Christopher Marlowe, The Jew of Malta

CHATILLON, A P R I L

1572

again Hotman was paying a visit to Admiral Coligny.1 Along with him came two of his students, Albert von Stettin and Hermann von Haas. Coligny welcomed them and showed them the gardens on his estate. It would be fascinating to know what confidences passed between him and Hotman on this, their last meeting, but all we have are a few recollections of the Admiral's private life as Hotman set them down some months later. His days, and even his meals, were filled with prayers, sermons, and psalm-singing. At Chatillon he had established a school to indoctrinate children in the true religion. In camp, too, he showed the same piety and regularity. In general, Coligny was the very model of the new Christian, in retrospect practically a Protestant saint. Since Conde's death three years before, he was also the leader of the Huguenot party, with some help from the Queen of Navarre; and so far his success had been remarkable, all things considered. Yet he had at all times exercised extreme moderation. "For 500 years no French nobleman has had so good an opportunity to trouble the state . . . ," ONCE

1

To Gualter, 21 Apr. 1572 (Zurich ZB, F. 39, f. 190), and to Haas, dedication to Consilia, 20 Feb. 1587.

205

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY

Hotman reported him as boasting. "I sought peace at just the time when a number of noble cities had already put themselves under my protection. . . . On conclusion of the peace I might have acquired even greater power at the King's expense, and yet who does not know that I chose rather to return home to lead a quiet life?" And still his prestige grew: "Everyone knows," he added, "how great is the credit given me by those who profess the purer religion."2 But it was this very credit that was forcing him to take a more active role. With the support of La Rochelle in particular, which was practically an independent fief as well as his second home, Coligny was extending his field of operations. According to the Huguenot line, of course, this was all strictly defensive. The principal target of Coligny's policy was Spain, or rather the supposed Madrid-Paris axis, which Huguenots, including Hotman, traced back to the mysterious interview between Catherine de Medicis and the Duke of Alba in 1565. Suspicions were naturally intensified by Alba's subsequent behavior in the Netherlands, and indeed this had been a significant factor in the second and third wars. After the Peace of St. Germain, Coligny kept trying to turn royal policy against Spain and, since Catherine was herself favorable, was enjoying some measure of success. While increasing his influence over the King, Coligny also began drawing closer to William of Orange (who later would marry his daughter) and to Louis of Nassau. He promised to support William's newest attempt to invade the Netherlands during the summer of 1572, while at the same time he persuaded the King to support Louis' seizure of Mons and Valenciennes. In July, when Mons was threatened by the Spanish, Catherine and Charles continued to follow Coligny's policy by agreeing to send a Huguenot force under Jean de Genlis 2

Vita Colinii, p. 50; corrections to be made in Hotman's account by the biographies of Delaborde and Whitehead in particular. On Coligny's earlier career, see J. Shimizu's political biography, Conflict of Loyalties (Geneva, 1970). 206

M A C H I A V E L L I ' S HOLIDAY

to relieve Louis of Nassau at Mons. But it was an extremely dangerous game that the Admiral was playing, and it became more so when Genlis' forces were ambushed and slaughtered. There were other signs which, to Hotman at least, were still more ominous. He had never forgotten the Vassy incident, and he feared a repetition on a grander scale. His suspicions appeared to be confirmed by a letter supposedly by Catherine de Medicis intercepted in 1569. "There is no better way to restore the crown of France . . . ," ran this document, later published by Hotman, "than by killing all Huguenots."3 Whether or not Hotman believed in the authenticity of this undoubtedly spurious letter, he hardly doubted that it expressed the Queen's private feelings. And then of course there were the Guises, not only the old tiger, the Cardinal, "the very forger of all the previous wars," but young Henry, who craved revenge for his father's murder, which he still blamed on Coligny. When Jeanne d'Albret, Queen of Navarre, died in June 1572, it is not surprising that Hotman, along with most Huguenots, believed that she had been poisoned by royal order. Other sinister rumors were flying, and it is said that Jean de Montluc, before leaving Paris on his mission to Poland on 17 August, warned La Rochefoucauld, one of Coligny's chief lieutenants, to get out of the city. In Paris there was growing unrest, and in July the King issued an ordinance banning weapons and expelling all vagabonds within 24 hours.4 In retrospect all these circumstances, even the most fortuitous and peripheral, seem to fall into one terrible pattern. At the time the one bright spot was the coming wedding between Jeanne d'Albret's son Henry of Navarre and Ca3 Vita Colinii, p. 57, and in Capilupi, Lo Strategema di Carlo IX, the French translation of which, printed in Geneva in 1574, may have been by Hotman (also in ACF, VII, 80), see Ch. X, n. 11 below; De Furoribus, f. xviii. 4 Ordonnance du roy . . . (Paris, 1572; Ars. 8°H. 12777*), dated 15 July.

207

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY therine's daughter Marguerite of Valois. "This was a great joy for all good men," Hotman himself had written. 6 The marriage, a kind of nuptial prefiguring of the policy later adopted by the Politiques, was delayed for a few weeks by the death of Jeanne but then was rescheduled for 18 Au­ gust. Of necessity Coligny would attend. During the cele­ brations he stayed in the house belonging to a family whom he had been looking after for more than a dozen years, ever since the death of the head of the house. This was the fam­ ily of Anne du Bourg, the first martyr of the religious wars.

PARIS, MONDAY, Ι8 AUGUST

1572

While Hotman was in Bourges, finishing up his week's classes and preparing to celebrate his forty-eighth birthday the next day, events were coming to a head in the capital, and of these Hotman himself would present one of the full­ est and most accurate accounts. About four o'clock in the afternoon the "political" marriage between the King of Na­ varre and Marguerite of Valois was celebrated. It was a splendid ceremony, brightened by symbols and hopes of peace. A few hours later, Admiral Coligny sat down to write his new wife, Jacqueline d'Autremont, who was now four months pregnant. 6 "Today," he wrote, "the marriage of Madame the King's sister and the King of Navarre was cele­ brated. The next three or four days will be passed in feast­ ing and in presenting masques and combats. Afterwards the King has promised to spend several days issuing orders throughout the kingdom against infractions of the edict." This in fact was Coligny's only reason for staying in Paris, where, as he knew, he was universally hated. "If I could think only of myself," he continued, "I would rather be with 5

T o Bullinger, 1 Feb. 1572 (Zurich ZB, D. 197a, f. 51')· Vita Colinii, p. 105; correct text in BSHPF, I (1852), 369, and Delaborde, III, 429-30. 6

208

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY

you than stay at court, for reasons I will tell you later; but I must set the public advantage before my private pleasure." It was worth remarking that, after the marriage mass, the King of Navarre went walking with a group of Huguenots. As for other news, Coligny concluded, it could wait until he returned home; he was still a bit ill with the colic. "Tell me," he added in a postscript, "how the little one is doing." There was surely nothing sinister in Coligny's decision, notwithstanding the charges later registered against him, but Hotman apparently decided to raise him above suspicion by editing this letter. Besides minor verbal alterations, Hotman added a phrase not in the original text (which itself still survives in the Tronchin collection in Geneva) : "In these festivities I will give offense to no one," he had Coligny say, referring evidently to the Duke of Guise, that mauvais gargon whom even Charles IX had reportedly warned him about. But such license, while it may cast some doubt on Hotman's historiographical scruples, does not materially affect our view of Coligny's position. Despite rumors and anxieties among his followers, he had resolved to remain in Paris for the sake of the public good. Of course what Catherine de Medicis and even the Duke of Guise were planning was also "for the public good," which was the usual phrase for what we would call reason of state. Just exactly what they had in mind historians are still debating, but the consequences would be plain enough. PARIS, FRIDAY, 22 AUGUST

1572

This was the day when the tragedy, as Hotman himself later described it, began. In the morning Coligny attended a meeting of the royal council. Then, taking leave of the King, who was on his way to a tennis game, he began walking with a group of his gentlemen, including Nicolas Barnaud and the young Philippe Duplessis Mornay, from 209

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY

the Louvre toward his house. Just as he turned down the Rue de Poulies, which ran along the Hotel de Bourbon, Coligny was hit in both arms by a shot, or shots.7 "Through that window!" he cried, pointing (says Hotman) to a house across the street in front of the cloisters of St. Germain Auxerrois. "Go see who is in the house." His men gave chase, but the would-be assassin, leaving his harquebus in the window, ran out the back way. The man was the notorious Sieur de Maurevert ("Manrevet" is Hotman's particular variation on the name), an old retainer of the Guises, who three years before had earned his nickname, "the king's killer," by assassinating Coligny's lieutenant, the Sieur de Mouy (whose son, eleven years after this, would kill Maurevert). The culprit escaped on horseback. Only a woman and a servant were left in the house, and they were taken into custody. Meanwhile, the Admiral was taken back to his house, which was located about three blocks away at the corner of the Rue de l'Arbre Sec and the Rue de Bethisy (now approximately 144 Rue de Rivoli). Here he was attended both by the King's physician, the famous Ambrose Pare, and by his own chaplain, Pierre Merlin, son of that Jacques Merlin who had been Hotman's colleague at Lausanne twenty years before and a man who was himself, along with Barnaud and Mornay, soon to be Hotman's friend and fellow exile.8 Also present was a certain "gentleman very favorable to the religion" named Cornaton, who had heard the disturbance and had come to bar the doors. He may 7 The present account of this famous scene is based mostly upon the Vita Colinii, pp. io7ff and De Furoribus, f. xxixff, both presumably by Hotman, though they differ in a few minor details; primary and secondary standard accounts have been used (ambassadors' reports, contemporary histories, and such modern authorities as Vaissiere), but only to correct and not to go beyond what Hotman probably knew. Cf. Mornay, I, 39. 8 Letter of Merlin to Jean Hotman, 1 Apr. 1590 (Paris BPF, 101, f. 179').

210

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY

have been the one who later described the events to Hotman. Pare treated the Admiral's wounds and found it necessary to amputate one finger, which, after two unsuccessful attempts, he finally managed to do with his dull pincers. Merlin stood by weeping. "Why do you weep, my friends?" asked Coligny. "I consider myself blessed to suffer these wounds for the sake of God. I am indeed full of pain, but I acknowledge this to be the will of God, and I thank Him for honoring me with this cross to bear for His sake. Therefore let us pray for Him to grant me the gift of perseverance. Merlin, you should be comforting me." "You are right, sir," answered Merlin. "And there is no greater solace for you than to think that God does you honor to think you worthy of suffering these miseries for Him and His religion's sake." "My Merlin," replied the Admiral, "if God should treat me according to His justice, I should have very different miseries to endure. But blessed be His name for the mercy which He shows toward his most unworthy servant." Then, according to Hotman's account, he launched into a long and eloquent confession of faith, ending with the declaration that he was ready either for death or for a life of continued service to the true religion and that he forgave the one who had shot him. There is no doubt that this attack was another episode in the longstanding feud with the Guises. When asked who was responsible for the attack, Coligny answered, "Other than the Duke of Guise I suspect no one, but I dare not say that for certain." The King was properly shocked at the news and (according to the Venetian ambassador) at least a little resentful at having his tennis game interrupted. In the afternoon he went to the Admiral's house, accompanied by his mother, two brothers, and many courtiers. Coligny spoke without 211

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY

bitterness and thanked him for his efforts to find the attacker. Then he turned to the public issues which were still his major concern. Hotman's version of this discourse is in substantial agreement with the others that have survived. "There are three things that I want to say to your majesty," Coligny began. "The first is my own fidelity to your highness . . . , though I am aware that malicious persons have accused me of being a subverter of the state. . . . But the only reason for these slanders is that I have opposed the arrogance of such men and have defended the authority of your edicts against violence, and I would not let them break the promise which you have made so many times to your subjects.... "Now I come to the Flanders matter," he continued, referring to the recent misfortune of Genlis, who had been surprised by the Spanish near Mons. "A straw can hardly be stirred in your secret council, nor any word be uttered there, but that it is soon carried to the Duke of Alba. Sire, I wish you would be careful of this. "Finally, I would wish you to have a care also about the observance of your edict of pacification. You know that you have often confirmed by oath, and that not only foreign nations but also your friends have witnessed you renewing this." And Coligny went on to describe a recent murder of a nurse and child as a particularly flagrant example of the way in which the edict was being defied. On the second point Charles did not comment, but he gave assurances that he did not question the Admiral's loyalty, and as for the edict, he promised that it would be enforced. When Coligny protested that those who would be doing the enforcing were the same men who had put a price on his head, Charles answered that he would send others more trustworthy. "I am afraid that this discussion will do you injury," he said, to end the conversation. "But I swear to you by the life of God that I will punish this deed so that it will never be forgotten." 212

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY "I do not think you need go far to find the culprit," Coligny remarked. Then the King and the Queen Mother approached the Admiral's bed for some private words which Hotman's informant could not catch. Before leaving, the King asked to see the bullet. "I am glad the pellet is out of the flesh," Catherine observed rather maliciously, "for I remember that when the Duke of Guise was slain, some surgeons told me that there was no danger of any poison once the pellet was out." The doctors assured her that they had already taken precautions against this, but they agreed that the Admiral was too weak to be moved. After the royal family had left there was a discussion about the next move. Some of the Huguenot gentlemen, including the Vidame de Chartres, wanted to retire from Paris, but Coligny decided against it. He seemed satisfied with the King's assurances of protection. The situation, however, was extremely ambiguous. Coligny was given a guard, but it was under the command of Jean de Cosseins, an old enemy. The Huguenot gentlemen were given quarters nearby in the Rue de Bethisy by Hotman's former colleague Rambouillet, but this could be for surveillance as well as for protection. In retrospect it seemed quite clear to men like Hotman that the trap had been set. PARIS, SUNDAY MORNING, SAINT BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY 24 AUGUST 1572

The Admiral was in bed, and Merlin was in the next room praying. Outside it was still dark. The day before there had been much unrest in the city, and men walked about with a great "clatter of armor." Some of these were Huguenots, but most were soldiers of the King whose business was ostensibly to keep the peace. Just the day before Charles had justified such measures, and perhaps added to the tension, by declaring that "those of the new religion want to rise up 213

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY

in revolt against His Majesty and against the state."8 As for Catherine, she must have been in a panic; yet even so she was more resolute than her son, if only because she realized that, after the attempt on Coligny's life, it was too late to turn back. Just after midnight she, Charles, the Duke of Anjou, and a few others, mainly Italians, gathered to discuss the next step in the "enterprise." Did Catherine remember the formula offered in the book on which she allegedly brought up her children? "In taking a state," Machiavelli had written, "the conqueror must arrange to commit all his cruelties at once, so as not to have to recur to them every day."10 The Huguenots were always convinced that it was the counsel of Machiavelli's Prince that prevailed at this meeting. In any case, less than three hours later the plan was set in motion. Coligny, in his third-floor bedroom, was awakened by a commotion downstairs. Cornaton burst into the room, and Pare asked what the trouble was.11 "My lord," said Cornaton to Coligny, "it is God that calls us to Him." "I am already prepared for death," the Admiral replied. "Save yourselves if you can, for it will be useless to try to save me. I commend my soul to God's mercy." Cornaton, Pare, Merlin, and two others managed to escape by way of the roof. Then the door gave way and the assassins broke into the room. It was a group of mercenaries, mainly Swiss, accompanied by Cosseins. They had forced entrance by pretending to deliver a message in the name of the King. The first to enter was a German soldier called Beheme ("Bohemian"), a retainer of the Guises and, according to one story, married to a bastard daughter of the Cardinal of Lorraine. "Are you not the Admiral?" he demanded. »ACF, VII, 213; Isambert, XIV, 256. 10II Principe, Ch. 8. 11 Vita Colinii, p. 130; De Furoribus, f. xl. 214

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY

"That I am, young man, but you should have respect for my age and gray hairs." But Beheme stepped forward and delivered his "message"—some say with a cry of vengeance for the Duke of Guise. He struck Coligny on the head with his sword, so becoming the first, as Hotman noted, to be spattered with the Admiral's blood. Then the body was thrown out of the window and trampled by the young Duke of Guise who was waiting below. Coligny's head and hands were cut off, in conventional fashion, and his genitals as well, to judge by contemporary reports and one sensational painting made less than a dozen years after.12 His head, according to one story, was delivered to the Cardinal of Lorraine in Rome. Three days later the body was taken from the city and hanged by the feet from the gibbet of Montfaucon "as a banner of victory by the people of Paris and as a monument to their madness and cruelty." "The smell of a dead enemy is sweet," Charles IX remarked when he saw the corpse a few days later. Such at least was the report of Papire Masson, who was a most eulogistic biographer as well as one of Hotman's worst enemies.13 The death of the Admiral was signaled by the bells of the cloister of St. Germain Auxerrois, which were rung at three o'clock. These "matins of Paris" marked the beginning of a general slaughter of Huguenots. Practically the whole population took part in the activities, made all the easier because the houses of the Protestants had been registered with the authorities. The King's and the Duke of Guise's armed men took the initiative, but even common laborers looted and stripped bodies and threw them into the Seine. As princes of the blood, Conde and Navarre were spared, but a number of distinguished men perished, including 12 H. Bordier, La Saint-Barthelemy et la critique moderne (Geneva, 1879), frontispiece. « Vita Caroli IX.

215

M A C H I A V E L L I ' S HOLIDAY Hotman's friend Petrus Ramus, who like Coligny was stabbed and then thrown out of a window in his College de Presles. For days afterwards bodies were found along the Seine, some of them, according to a Huguenot song, as far as Rouen. How many victims were there? Montluc said 40, but that was just the total of recorded names. One eyewitness said 100,000, and Hotman may have believed it.14 Most modern authorities settle for a figure substantially less than 10,000. Many more, of course, fled—some, like Hotman's brotherin-law Prevost, to La Rochelle, others to Geneva, as so often before. The actual number of victims, dead and exiled, however, is largely immaterial to the fantastic impression made upon Protestants. The tragedy was so enormous, as one commentator put it, "that I doubt if posterity will ever believe it." Such was "Machiavelli's holiday," more or less as Hotman conceived of it. By far the most appalling thing to contemporaries was the idea that the affair was carried out, as the young Duke of Guise proclaimed, "in the name of the King." On 28 August, indeed, "His Majesty declared that what is done has been done by his express command and not by cause of religion," or in another version, "not to violate his edicts of pacification"; and later the Parlement reissued the arret of 1569 condemning the Admiral for sedition.15 There was widespread feeling that, as one apologist wrote, "There is no gallows, cross, or torture severe enough to pay for the crime of a traitor, rebel, and enemy of King and country." On 25 August, it is true, the King ordered the massacres to stop, but the damage was done, and this could hardly exculpate him in the eyes even of moderate Catholics. The bad impression was only reinforced by the scene acted out in the Parlement on Tuesday the 26th, which was 14

Reveille-matin, p. 78. Declaration du roy de la cause et occasion du mort de Vadmiral . . . (Paris, 1572; LN 720), and Isambert, XIV, 257; Les Arrests de dernier execution, contre Gaspar de Colligny . . . (Paris, 1573), repeating the arret cited in Ch. VIII, n. 32 above. 15

216

MACHIAVELLPS HOLIDAY

related by almost all contemporary accounts, including Hotman's. During the Lit de justice, Charles accepted responsibility for the assassinations and in turn was thanked by the Parlement in the person of Christofle de Thou. This old friend of Dumoulin and of Hotman's father, "notable for his light brains and cruel heart," remarked Hotman, replied by citing approvingly the apothegm, worthy of Machiavelli, which Commines had put in the mouth of Louis XI: "One who knows not how to dissimulate, knows not how to rule."16 Treachery as well as murder, Huguenots concluded, and all their suspicions seemed confirmed. As always Paris set the style for the provinces. Royal letters forbidding violence were largely nullified by the verbal and tacit messages which emanated from Paris and by the government's insistence that the Huguenots themselves had been planning an uprising. So the explosion in the capital set off a whole train of similar incidents throughout France. Over the next few days thousands more were massacred in Meaux, Troyes, Orleans, Rouen, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Lyon —and of course Hotman's own town of Bourges. BOURGES, MONDAY, 25

AUGUST

1572

It was market day in the town and the beginning of another week of classes in the university. During the afternoon, news came from Paris about the first attempt on Coligny's life made two days before. For a long time there had been rumors about a general uprising of Catholics against Protestants; and Hotman, like other well-informed Huguenots, immediately suspected that the attack on Coligny signified some such plan, another and more terrible Vassy perhaps. In Bourges many people thought so, too, and a man was sent to Paris to find out for sure.17 The following evening this " D e Furoribus, f. xlv; Reveille-matin, p. 71; and also Christofle's son the historian, De Thou. "Crespin, III, 704; ME, I, f. 254' (ACF, VII, 309); Chauvet, in appendix of Glaumet, Journal. 217

M A C H I A V E L L I ' S HOLIDAY messenger, a police captain named Marveil, returned with an account of the events of the previous Sunday, St. Bartholomew's Day; and the Catholics took this as a signal to begin similar festivities in their city. Unfortunately the authorities were still confused about the intention of the King and did little to prevent what followed. Around midnight the slaughter of Protestants began, as it did also in the neighboring towns of Sancerre and La Charite. Shops and houses were pillaged, and the killing became indiscriminate; one man was "defenestrated" simply because he had been at the recent defeat of Genlis. The reign of terror continued even after Wednesday, when a lettre de cachet arrived, instructing the mayor Jean Joupitre to prevent any repetition of the "sedition" in Paris (was he referring to the Huguenots or to their pursuers?). Later prisoners were brought, murdered, and thrown into ditches. The names of 23 victims have been recorded. 18 Hotman would more than likely have been the 24th, but he had not waited for his suspicions to be confirmed. On Tuesday, dressed in his professorial robes and doctor's bonnet, he went out for a walk and kept walking, past the guards posted at the gates by the Catholics. His colleague Hugues Doneau followed his example. He managed to escape by donning a student's habit and making his way out of the city in the company of some of his German pupils, who had to flee and (as Hotman said) often lost their property, but who as Lutherans were immune from personal attack. Both Hotman and Doneau started down the road to Lyon, which must have been relatively full of traffic at that time. About five weeks later they found asylum in Geneva.19 GENEVA, 3 OCTOBER

1572

"By the providence, mercy, and clemency of God," wrote Hotman to Simon Sulzer of Basel, "I have been delivered « I n Capilupi (ACF, VII, 157); ACF, VII, 526. 19 Doneau to Amerbach, 21 Sept. 1576 (Basel UB, G.II.16, f. 259') • 218

MACHIAVELLI'S

HOLIDAY

from assassins the likes of whom no age has seen." And to Bullinger, whom he had congratulated only a few months before on the completion of fifty years of service to the Zurich church: "I arrived here yesterday after having es­ caped this work of Pharoah. . . . In such misery I have no time to write at length. I will say only that 50,000 persons have just been slaughtered in France in the space of ten days. The rest of the true Christians are hiding in the forests. The savage beasts there are kinder, I am sure, than those in human form." In the butchery of Paris, he was sorry to add, the Swiss guards had behaved worst of all. "Remember me in your prayers," he concluded.20 Hotman had lost his belongings and books, the manu­ scripts of half a dozen works, and very nearly his wife and a son, Theages, whom Peter Martyr himself had baptized; and now he was writing hasty letters to tell friends of his adventures. The next day another was sent off to Gualter.21 "I assure you that the majority of papists are angry at the Rang and detest these butcheries and betrayals," he wrote, adding that he could not understand how the Swiss could continue to send troops under such circumstances. "There is not a single important family that has not been affected by this massacre and that does not fear to lose its rights, property, and alliances." Though it later turned out to be false, Hotman had heard that his brother-in-law Prevost had been killed along with La Rochefoucauld in the latter's house. "It is strange that the Admiral did not foresee this," Hotman wrote two days later to William of Hesse, "since the inhabitants of La Rochelle and La Charite had been warning him for two months.... Not only in those cities but throughout all France men were declaring that the Admiral had been blinded by the deceivers at court, and that by his 20

To Sulzer and to Bullinger (Zurich ZB, S. 127, f. 47% and Ehinger, 23; also BSHPF, XLIII, 430). 21 To Gualter, also to Haller, 4 Oct. (Zurich ZB, F. 39, S. i86T, 187')·, prefatory letter to Nicolas Reuber for De Feudis, ι Mar. 1573. 219

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY imprudence our churches were being divided." In such a state, he added, they had to resist "the Tridentine web and that popish alliance called the Holy League," and he hoped that William, like his heroic father, would stand by them. He went on then to describe some of the atrocities, including babies being thrown from windows, committed in Paris and elsewhere. "But I hope soon to write a history," he concluded, "from which your highness will learn of the monstrosities all over France. . . ." He was referring here to the French Fury, a book which Bullinger himself was urging him to write. 22 The news of St. Bartholomew had reached Geneva at the end of August. It caused perhaps more shock than surprise, for at the beginning of the month the Genevan council was already warning French pastors against returning to the domain of that "Florentine woman." Nor was it unexpected to Beza. "What an atrocity!" he exclaimed when he heard of Coligny's death. "How many times did I warn him! How many times did I predict this!" 23 At the beginning of September, refugees from Lyon, mostly merchants, began arriving with terrible stories to tell. "My lords," they reported to the council, "a horrible massacre of our brother reformers has just taken place in Lyon. All along the road we have seen gallows being used. Blood is flowing there and apparently all over France. Beginning tomorrow we will see the arrival of the fugitives from this butchery." 24 Beza welcomed them and offered what solace he could, remarking that at least the plague, which had been raging in Geneva, seemed to disappear with the coming of the ref22

To Hesse, 6 Oct., and to Bullinger, 25 Oct. (Ehinger, 24; Zurich

ZB, S. 127, f. 95'). 23 Beza to T h . Tilius, 10 Sept. (BSHPF, VII, 16). " G e n e v a AE, RC, 67, f. 135' (30 Aug. 1572); cf. J. Geberel, Histoire de Veglise de Geneve (Geneva, 1855), II, 321, et passim. Generally important are H . Fazy, La Saint-Barthelemy et Geneve (Geneva, 1879), pp. 40-48, and E. Choisy, L'Etat Chretien Calviniste a Geneve au temps de Theodore de Beze (Geneva, 1902), pp. 8iflf.

220

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY ugees from France. Over 2,000 eventually took asylum. More than 4,000 livres were subscribed for their support and collected through the academy, but it was a difficult winter, made worse by the fear that the massacres were part of a larger and more sinister plot which the council itself suspected to be "undoubtedly general and the work of the Council of Trent." For months there were rumors of a coming invasion by the forces of the Catholic alliance. Hotman himself, lamenting that "Papists everywhere are celebrating and triumphing, as if God had forgotten His people," spoke of the Rome-Madrid axis and the "terrible pact, which they call the Holy League." 25 The danger seemed more real when Genevans were alerted to the possibility, first by their friend the Elector Palatine and then by a certain refugee named Antoine Prost, an accused French spy. Under torture, Prost said that the invasion would come from Savoy, and he specifically implicated a former law professor at the academy, Pierre Charpentier, who was already involved in anti-Huguenot propaganda. Nothing came of this, but it did make for very anxious times. Six weeks after St. Bartholomew there occurred an event that must have impressed Hotman, especially in view of his rather un-Calvinistic weakness for occult sciences like alchemy and astrology. Early in November, at ten o'clock, just as Charles IX was walking in a procession following the holy relics of the Virgin Mary, a new star appeared in the autumn sky—the first and perhaps most spectacular nova in modern history. According to one apologist for royal policy (and a man, incidentally, who would shortly be attacking Hotman in print), it was a sign of God's approval for avenging His church. "I realize," added Francois de Belleforest, "that the heretics will laugh and tax me with superstition."26 In fact he was probably wrong; more likely, the 25

Hotman to Bullinger, 25 Oct. 1572 (see n. 22 above). Geneva AE, RC, 67, f. 201r (4 Sept. 1572); cf. J. Gautier, Histoire de Geneve (Geneva, 1901), V, 94. 26 Francois de Belleforest, Discours sur Pbeur des presages advenez

221

MACHIAVELLI'S

HOLIDAY

"heretics" would have charged him simply with error, for to many Protestants the star was really that of Bethlehem returned, and what it signified was not God's approval but coming salvation. Whatever he thought of this astral spec­ tacle, Hotman himself certainly looked forward to eventual success. "The disciples of Christ are passing their lives in sorrow while the world laughs," he remarked to Bullinger. "But the day will come when our sorrow will turn to joy." And the context indicates that Hotman was not referring to the afterlife. GENEVA,

13

OCTOBER

1572

Hotman and Doneau were luckier than most of their fel­ low refugees, including pastors like Chandieu, Hotman's old fellow conspirator, and the Admiral's family, who were soon forced to continue on into Germany. Less than two weeks after arriving, they were offered employment by the Genevan council. "Since God has sent us these two person­ ages so renowned and learned in the law," the register states, "the ministers have decided to ask them to give some informal lessons in law, which they willingly did."27 Behind this, no doubt, was Hotman's old friend Beza, professor of theology in the academy as well as leader of the Genevan church. This was only a temporary solution. The company of pas­ tors was reluctant to appoint another permanent professor of law. Ever since the establishment of a chair of law seven years before, they had had trouble with the occupants, especially with Pierre Charpentier, who did his job badly as well as infrequently, and then left altogether. There were few students, and in any case what the ministers really prede nostre temps significant!, la felicite de regne de nostre Roy Charles r (Paris, 1572), f. io ; cf. De Thou, Historiae sui temporis, VI, 535. 2" Geneva AE, RC, 67, ff. 164', 163' (25 Oct. 1572); cf. C. Borgeaud, Histoire de VUnivershe de Geneve (Geneva, 1900), pp. 123ΓΤ, and Fazy, La Sainte-Barthelemy, p. 37. 222

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY

ferred was another professor of theology. Under these conditions Doneau left in December to take a position at the University of Heidelberg. Hotman himself was offered a position at the University of Marburg by William of Hesse, but he was too involved in emigre politics to accept.28 By spring things had improved, and in March the council authorized the hiring of a professor of law. Beza and other friends urged Hotman to stay on and take this job. But Hotman was in no hurry to make a decision. He had by no means given up hope of returning to France and recovering his property. This was the attitude, too, of many of his fellow exiles, some of whom begged the ambassador Pomponne de Bellievre to intercede for them. They were urged by him to take an oath of fidelity, swearing that they had fled not for political reasons but only "for the repose of their consciences."29 Because of the implied sanctioning of royal policy, there was much discussion of the form of the oath between Beza and the refugees-, but for a man like Hotman such a surrender was out of the question. Instead, and as usual, he looked for help from his German friends, and the first man to respond was his old patron William of Hesse. The following spring Catherine de Medicis reported that Landgrave William, of whom Hotman was a particulier serviteur ("minister and advocate," William had styled him), requested that Hotman's belongings be restored so that he could at least sell them.30 The request was at least partially successful, for during that spring, in the midst of the fourth war, Hotman recovered a number of his precious manuscripts. Among them were his Institution of Dialectic, his Consolation Drawn from Holy Scripture, his commentaries on Caesar, parts of his Observations, and various notes on civil law. It seems probable, too, though Hotman 28

Letter from William of Hesse, 12 Mar. 1573 (Ep 29). 2» Geneva AE, RC, 68, f. 94* (26 Apr. 1573). 30 Catherine to Schomberg, 21 Apr. 1573, in La Ferriere, IV, 204; cf. Hesse to Hotman (see n. 28 above), and Hotman's prefatory letter to De Feudis (see n. 21 above).

223

M A C H I A V E L L I ' S HOLIDAY

does not say so, that his work on the Franco-Gallia was included in this material. As time went on, however, it became clear that he could not expect an early return to France. The news coming to Geneva was all bad. Leaderless, the Huguenots had taken refuge in the few towns remaining to them and were fighting for their lives. In general the fourth war of religion was all the more terrible because of its indecisiveness: it was badly organized, it involved all classes of society in one way or another, and it was concerned largely with sieges. It lasted for the better part of a year after St. Bartholomew and served to confirm the fears and resentment generated by that catastrophe. It also led Hotman to decide to take the position offered him at the academy. Later he was joined by an old colleague from Valence, Ennemond Bonnefoy, who (Hotman had heard) had escaped from the massacres with the help of Jacques Cujas. Hotman served as a witness when Bonnefoy was registered as a citizen of Geneva the next year.31 Once again, then, Hotman made himself at home in Geneva, which had been his first refuge a quarter of a century before. Once again he was virtually penniless, in flight from tyranny, and uncertain about his future. This time he had no "father" to look to, but he did have the support of the emigre community and the inspiration of Geneva itself. It would be difficult to exaggerate the strength of this little republic's desire for independence, its sense of mission and ideological commitment. The oath sworn to the council by the citizens, Hotman among them, included promises to uphold the law, to obey the council and to serve in it if called, to guard the liberties of the city, by taking up arms if necessary, to buy a house in the city, not to import foreign merchandise, and not to leave the city without permission. 31

Livre des habitants de Geneve, ed. P. F. Geisendorf, I (Geneva, 1963), p. 58 (26 Nov. 1572); Hotman to Cappel, 23 Nov. 1573 (Ep 33)·

224

M A C H I A V E L L I ' S HOLIDAY

But the first and last requirements were ideological rather than disciplinary—"First of all to live according to the Reformation and the way of life prescribed by the gospel of God . . . ," and "finally not to permit any machinations or enterprises against the holy and evangelical Reformation. .. ."32 In the sixteenth century Geneva was one of those places larger than life and more feared (by some) than death. Like Florence and Venice, it had a mythical dimension, and it has been compared to Utopia as well as to Jerusalem and to a hell upon earth. The "myth of Geneva" was remarkable during the time of Calvin, but it lived on, in some ways even more impressively, under Beza during the wars of religion. According to some it was an infernal place infested with Protestant demons that ought to be exorcized by military force; to others it was a blessed place that preserved Christian liberty and created unnumbered saints and martyrs. Such views were intensified by the events of August 1572. It was a miraculous thing to see so many French refugees from the carnage, remarked one citizen: "The King, whom many call the 'massacrer,' must recognize in this the hand of God when he sees those he believed exterminated multiplying and flourishing as before."33 What St. Bartholomew added to Geneva's ideological complex and Old Testament morality was a kind of revolutionary fervor that would express itself in an extraordinary burst of propaganda and polemic over the next few years. 82 Geneva AE, RC, 68 (and other vols.), first unnumbered page; see Appendix VI. 83 Savion, in Geisendorf (ed.), Les Annalistes genevois du debut du dix-septieme Steele (Societe d'histoire et d'archeologie de Geneve, Memoires et documents, XXXVII, 1942), 515; cf. Resolution claire et facile sur la question tant de fois fake de la prise des armes par les inferieures . . . (Reims, 1577; Lb.Mio3.A), p. 83; and Hotman's own Franco-Gallia, Ch. V (p. 29). In general, A. Dufour, "Le Mythe de Geneve au temps de Calvin," Schweitzerische Zeitschrift fur Geschichte, IX (1959), 489-518.

225

MACHIAVELLI'S HOLIDAY It was in such an environment and in such a heated political climate that Hotman began to reflect, more widely than before, about the international situation and to return, more intensively than before, to his old line of questioning about the nature of authority and obedience.

226

X. Kulturkampf GENEVA,1573-1576 "My book is a work of history, the history of a fact." "Everyone . . . says that my book is very effective in defending the right of the people against tyranny." Hotman, 1575 GENEVA, 10 JANUARY

1573

HOTMAN was now a confessed, though not quite a declared, revolutionary, and there is little doubt that St. Bartholomew pushed him over the line which he had long tried to avoid crossing. He revealed his feelings to his old friend Rudolph Gualter in this way: "We have recently learned that the French ambassador [Pomponne de Bellievre] has been sent among your neighbors. He has complained to Bullinger that we have insulted the royal majesty. But how can there be any majesty in such a monster, and how can one accept one as a king a man who has spilled the blood of 30,000 persons in eight days?" 1 The point was that "tyranny" could no longer be sloughed off on evil advisers or foreign usurpers. Now the target was the crown itself, and its majesty, which was to say its "sovereignty." The king himself, as one pamphlet suggested, had become the "tiger." This most dangerous form of lese majesty had apparently become the basic political premise of the entire French emigre community. Equally shocking was the fact that this "tyranny" was still being exercised, most notably in the case of La Rochelle, which was again becoming the center of resistance. Even before St. Bartholomew, La Rochelle had scorned the "Ital1 T o Gualter, 10 Jan. 1573 (Zurich ZB, F. 39, f. 491). Cf. Pierre Burin, Response a une epistre commenceant: seigneur Elvide . . . (Basel, 1574).

227

KULTURKAMPF ian rebels and other degenerate and bastardized French"; now, harking back to the liberties granted by Charles V in 1372, it began behaving like an independent republic. 2 Armed conflict began in November. "It is astonishing how so few can resist so many successfully," Hotman remarked in January, and the siege went on for another five months after that. Even more than Geneva, La Rochelle represented a kind of paradigm of the Huguenot cause, and its dilemma posed a most interesting and crucial point of public law: did this formerly privileged but now very much persecuted city have the right to throw off royal authority and to declare its "ancient independence"? The question was very much on Hotman's mind. "I should very much like to know your opinion about it," Hotman had asked Bullinger, addressing him as a professional theologian. "For there seems to be the clear precedent of the city of Libna, in the Book of Kings, which Doctor Martyr himself noted." (Libna, or "Lobna," as Hotman called this revolutionary archetype, was the Hebrew city which took up arms against the tyrannical king Joram, son of Ahab.) "For 200 years the people of La Rochelle have had the right not to receive a garrison against their will. N o w they are overrun not only by occupying troops, that is by burning and looting hoodlums, but by trained and condemned murderers." 3 There was a rumor, Hotman added, that La Rochelle meant to ally itself with or even to give itself to England. The legal position seemed clear, and Hotman only hoped that Bullinger would 2

Declaration et protestation ce ceux de la religion de la Rochelle ([La Rochelle], 1568) and Second declaration . . . ([La Rochelle], I J 6 9 ) , BN, Lb.M226-27. 3

To Bullinger, 12 Dec. 1572 (Zurich ZB, S. 127, f. 1230; Bullinger had also discussed the matter with Hotman in a letter (Zurich SA, E.II.358, f. 398'), published by Andre Bouvier, Henri Bullinger (Neuchatel, 1940), p. 537; the reference is to II Kings 8:22. Cf. P. Cauriana, De Obsidione Rupellae commentarius, ed. L. Delayant (La Rochelle, 1856), and Arcere, L'Histoire de la ville de la Rochelle (La Rochelle, 1756), I, 430.

228

KULTURKAMPF lend his theological authority to their cause and write to England. Throughout the spring and summer Hotman followed the course of the fourth civil war, commenting on the struggles in Nimes, Montauban, Grenoble, Sancerre, and especially La Rochelle. "The citizens of La Rochelle are fighting with courage and determination," he told Gualter in June.* "Everyone agrees that more than 8,000 papists have died in the siege, including many nobles. Strozzi has lost a hand, Nevers an arm, Guise's brother has a hand wound, and Biron has been killed by canon fire . . . ; and in the camp plague and famine have claimed more lives than artillery." Meanwhile in Lyon, he added, fires were lit to celebrate the election of Henry of Anjou as King of Poland; and one might at least hope that many papists would accompany him, thus diminishing the royal forces. Both sides were exhausted, he wrote to Bullinger a little later. "In Lyon, Paris, and Toulouse people demand peace." All Hotman could do was to pray—"May God have mercy on my poor country" —but it was no use. Most horrible of all was the condition of his place of refuge of four years before. "Our brothers of Sancerre," he lamented, "have been abandoned by men and apparently even by God, and they are perishing of hunger and misery." The besieged were forced to eat horses and dogs and make other culinary experiments, and there was at least one report of cannibalism. When peace finally came in June, Sancerre was not even included in the settlement. There was no justice, Hotman concluded. H o w could there be obedience?

GENEVA, 15 JANUARY

1573

A touching letter of this date arrived from the widow of Admiral Coligny, Jacqueline d'Autxemont, now prisoner of 4

To Gualter, 1 June, to Bullinger, 20 June and 8 Aug., and to Amerbach, 20 May 1573 (Zurich ZB, F. 39, f. 2i2 r ; S. 129, ff. 29' and 75 r ; Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 149').

229

KULTURKAMPF the Duke of Savoy.5 "Monsieur Hotman," she wrote, "works of eloquence have given immortality to great captains and emperors, and without them time, which devours all, would efface their memory. . . . I beseech you to take up your pen again in order to leave for posterity some record of the vir­ tue of my late lord and husband, which our enemies would like to blot out." Already embarked on a history of the mas­ sacre and the events leading up to it, started a couple of months before at Bullinger's request, Hotman now ac­ cepted this biographical commission as well. He spent much of the winter on these two projects, the French Fury and the Life of Coligny, which figured prominently in the flood of propaganda released by St. Bartholomew. The first was published this year, the second in 1575, and both were soon translated into French, English, and German. On this same day Hotman complained to Bullinger about some recent propaganda on behalf of the French govern­ ment justifying the massacre of St. Bartholomew. One dis­ tressing statement was a letter written by Pierre Charpentier, Hotman's predecessor as law professor at Geneva and alleged accomplice of Prost (since executed as a Catholic agent), addressed to Franciscus Portus, now professor of Greek in Geneva; the other was an address made by the ambassador to Switzerland, Pomponne de Bellievre, to the Diet of Baden on 7 December. Every day he received let­ ters from shocked friends in Basel, Bern, Zurich, Stras­ bourg, and even Heidelberg. These libels would not go un­ answered, Hotman assured Bullinger. "Portus and Beza will respond to these dogs unleashed by the court, who offend 6 God for the sake of money." The man with the dagger is β Paris BN, Cinq cents de Colbert, 16, f. ioo% published in BSHPF, VI (1858), 29. Cf. Hotman to Nachod, 21 Sept., and to Cappel, 24 Sept. 1575 (Breslau, Rh. 402, No. 250, original in Berlin, copy from Geneva MHR; and Ep 45). e T o Bullinger, 15 Jan., also 2 Mar. 1573 (Zurich SA, E.II.368, ff. r T 503 " , and ZB, S. 128, f. 70'). Charpentier, Epistola ad Franciscum Portum Cretensem . . . (n.p., 1572), translated in ME, I, ff. 323ΓΓ;

230

KULTURKAMPF followed by the man with a sponge, as Lord Acton put it; and Hotman, ever the lawyer, did not doubt who was the guiltier. Papinian had said it best: "It is better to commit a parricide than to excuse it." In this way Hotman was once again drawn into the dead­ ly arena of ideological combat. T o understand the grounds of this propaganda war it is necessary to recall one new de­ velopment in international politics. For several months the French government had been involved in the competition for the Polish crown, which was elective and, after the death of the last of the Jagiello dynasty in July 1572, open to foreign candidates. Catherine de Medicis wanted this crown for her son Henry of Anjou, and so she sent one of her favorite envoys, Hotman's old patron Jean de Montluc, to negotiate. It was an elaborate enterprise. Among those involved was another old acquaintance of Hotman, Frangois Baudouin. Though invited, he did not go to Poland, but he was commissioned to translate a Latin history of Poland and to write a new history of the house of Anjou, stressing in particular its royal tradition and throne-worthiness. It was while working on that book that he died a year later. Eccentric to the end, he also took exception to Charpentier's pamphlet. 7 In mid-August of 1572 Montluc had left for Cracow and arrived just at the time of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. Whatever shock he felt at the news of the disaster was more than overshadowed by dismay at the possible effects on his mission. Most of the blame he placed on the Huguenots. " T o the devil with this 'cause,'" he wrote, "which has been the cause of so much evil . . . , and which has caused our good Bellievre's oration in Paris BN, Fr. 15895, if. i7 r -4i r ; in general, Marquis de Noailles, Henri de Valois et la Pologne en ι$η2 (Paris, 1867), II, 128-46. 7 "Erreurs notables de la lettre de Charpentier . . . ," in ME, I, ff. 368ff. The translation was of Jan Herburt, Histoire des roys et princes de Pologne (Paris, 1573). 231

KULTURKAMPF and humane king to dip his hands in blood." 8 All Montluc could do was to join the government in justifying the deed on the grounds of extreme necessity and self-preservation in the face of a revolutionary threat. One such defense he published himself; others he sponsored and helped to distribute. These debates over war-guilt furnished the background and provocation for Hotman's developing political views. The first pamphlet attacking the Huguenots was published less than a month after the massacre by the renegade Calvinist Charpentier. As a jurist, though according to Hotman not a very good jurist, he made use of the old distinction between the politically and the religiously inspired, arguing specifically "that the persecutions of the churches of France have come about not through those who profess the religion but through those who encourage factions and conspiracies, which go by the name of 'the cause.'" "The 'cause,' " he scoffed, "all they mean by this is to carry out a successful coup." He singled out Beza as the most culpable of all the intriguers and placed the blame on the church of Geneva as the source of sedition. Later he spoke of the massacre as "punishment for the rebels of St. Bartholomew." What irritated Hotman almost as much was Charpentier's reference to Ramus as "a man most pious and totally opposed to the 'cause' " and as a friend. "How dare this wretch boast of intimacy with my friend Petrus?" he demanded. "How Ramus, were he still alive, would confound him!" It was in response to this attack that Portus wrote his letter "on behalf of the innocence of those of the Cause." Completed less than a week later, the pamphlet was submitted to the council by Beza and published in May.9 8 Letter to Brulart, 20 Jan. 1573, published by Noailles, Henri de Valois, III, 223-24, and Oratio nomine christianissimi Galliarum regis . . . anno. 1573 die 10. menus Aprilis (Paris, 1573), translated in ME, II, ff. 6iff. 9 Geneva AE, RC, 68, f. 44' (16 Feb. 1573). Portus, Ad Petri Cerpentarii virulentam epistolam, responsio (n.p., 1573); cf. Charpentier (n. 6 above) and Ad Dominum Lomanium Terridae (n.p., 1575).

232

KULTURKAMPF

Bellievre's oration was a more direct expression of the government's position. Admitting the tragic loss of life, the ambassador argued that the Huguenots had been on the verge of rebellion and that Charles IX was in immediate danger of losing his crown. To this statement, too, there was a response, this one by a certain Polish gentleman calling himself "Wolfgang Prisbach," who was an acquaintance of Hotman, or at least was familiar with his work. His account of the background of St. Bartholomew, and in particular the life of the Admiral, relied upon Hotman's own description and followed the standard Huguenot line.10 Other Catholic apologies included the oration delivered by Ramus' col­ league Marc Antoine Muret in December at the papal court, a discourse by Francois de Belleforest, and a violent satire by Artus Desire against the "Theodorbezian infec­ tion." Further exchanges took place between Jacques Cujas, Hotman's successor at the University of Valence, who wrote a defense of his patron Jean de Montluc, and Doneau, re­ plying from Germany under the name of "Zacharia Furnesterus"; and, also pseudonymously, between Guy du Four de Pibrac, who tried to exculpate the King, and the Hugue­ not Pierre Burin. There were almost as many men with sponges, it might seem, as men with daggers. The pamphlets, concerned more with the problem of 10

Wolfgang Prisbach Cracoviensi, Responsio ad orationem habitam nuper in concilio Helvetiorum, pro defensione caedum et latrociniorum, quae in Gallia commissa sunt (La Rochelle, 1573), esp. p. 48; translated in ME, II, ff. 2off. Muret, Oraison prononcee devant le pape Qregoire XIII . . . (Paris, 1573); [Doneau], Adversus . . . defensiones calumnias Zachariae Furnesteri defensio (Paris, 1574), translated in ME, II, IT. ;off; [Cujas], Pro lo. Monlucio . . . praescriptio adversus libellum . . . Zachariae Furnesteri (Paris, 1575), trans­ lated in ME, II, ff. 7off; [Doneau], Adversus anonymi cuiusdam pro Monlucio praescriptionem, Zachariae Furnesteri defensio (n.p., 1575); Pibrac, Ornatissimi cuiusdam viri, de rebus gallicis, ad Stanislaum Elvidium epistola (Paris, 1573), also ed. A. Cabos (Paris, 1922); Pierre Burin (see η. 1 above); Belleforest (see Ch. IX, n. 26 above); Desire, La Singerie des huguenots (Paris, 1574); and Figure des medailles de la conspiration des rebelles (Paris, 1572; Ars. 8°H. 12778).

233

KULTURKAMPF

guilt than with analysis, were quite ephemeral. At the same time, however, a few more ambitious and more carefully considered narratives had begun to appear. Four of these were of fundamental importance. The first was the notorious Stratagem of Charles IX, a "true description of this deplorable tragedy" written by Camilo Capilupi within a month after the massacre; Hotman knew about this and may have even translated it into French a year later. The second was the dialogue written by a member of the late Admiral's entourage, once thought to be Nicolas Barnaud; the following year this work was incorporated with a second dialogue by another author, perhaps Hugues Doneau, and published as the Reveille-matin des frangois.11 The other two were Hotman's own history of the massacre and his biography of Coligny. What has been said about the propaganda surrounding the conspiracy of Amboise applies also to that provoked by the massacre of St. Bartholomew. The Huguenot pamphlets emerged out of a common impulse, a common fund of information, and were directed at a common goal; and within a few years many of them were assembled in one collection with commentary by Simon Goulart. Among the intellectuals of the emigrant community in Geneva there was undoubtedly a large amount of cooperation and mutual borrowing as well as common reliance on the oral tradition preserved by those who escaped the massacre; and it is impossible (for us as it was for contemporaries) to resolve the various problems of attribution satisfactorily. This difficulty 11

ho Stratagema di Carlo IX ([Geneva], 1574), with accompanying translation and "Advertissement au lecteur," attributed to Hotman by John Vienot, Histoire de la reforme jrangaise (Paris, 1926), I, 422. he Reveille-matin des franfois ("Edinburgh" [Basel?], 1574), t n e fifst part of which was published earlier as Dialogue auquel sont traitees plusieurs choses advenues aux Lutheriens et Huguenots de la France dated 31 Dec. 1572; cf. P.F.M. Mealy, Les Publicistes de la reforme (Paris, 1903), p. 133. That Hotman remained in touch with Doneau appears from a letter to Rhedinger (Breslau, R. 245, No. 185, now in Berlin).

234

KULTURKAMPF is increased by the effects of rumor, panic, hatred, and partisanship. Hotman himself was by no means consistent in his accounts, and there are discrepancies between the Life of Coligny and the French Fury, not to speak of his private letters. There are also a few fabricated documents and unwarranted conclusions about the motivation of individuals. Yet on the whole these works offer a remarkably thorough account of the massacres and their political context. The line taken by Hotman and the other Huguenot pamphleteers was not only agreed upon but practically determined in advance, having in fact been fashioned in the course of over a dozen years of war, hot and cold. They all accepted the thesis that ever since the massacre of Vassy the "papists," inspired by the Cardinal of Lorraine in particular, had planned and indeed "conspired" to exterminate those of the religion. They agreed, too, that Catherine de Medicis was in on this plot at least since the suspicious meeting with the Duke of Alba at Bayonne in 1565, and that the previous peace concluded at St. Germain in 1570 was a piece of pure deception. Finally, they all assumed that the massacres of August and October 1572 had been entirely premeditated.12 Because of their longstanding feelings of persecution and preoccupation with guilt, it was only natural that they should (like many Catholics, it should be added) take a conspiratorial view of St. Bartholomew. Here is a classic instance of the creation of a historical myth. Underlying the Huguenot pamphlets of the 1570^ was a still more sinister myth, a myth that began with common national pride and distrust of foreigners and ended with vicious and almost racist xenophobia. At the beginning of the wars the evil foreigners were the Guises, that arrogant and ambitious race of Lorrainers; but increasingly the Huguenots came to direct their anxieties toward the south, toward the Spanish, who were persecuting their confessional brethren in the Netherlands, and especially toward Italy 12 E.g., De Furoribus, pp. vi, vii, xviii; Vita Colinii, pp. 35, 57, 100; Reveille-matin, pp. 15, 18, 37; and cf. Ch. VIII, n. 25 above.

235

KULTURKAMPF and the revived ultramontanism of the post-Tridentine papacy. This prejudice was intensified by the growing resentment against Catherine de Medicis and the fuomsciti—the "Frenchified Italians" as they were called, who surrounded her and who, as Hotman also complained, were coming to monopolize so many lucrative offices, especially those of tax collectors. Manifold were the expressions of this evil influence—and "influence" is a most appropriate term, being Italian in origin and having overtones both of pathology and of astrology, which happened to be one of the Queen Mother's favorite pursuits. They included Italianate vices ranging from Gceronianism to sodomy (the "Florentine vice"), from atheism to assassination (killing "Italian style," said Hotman's friend Henri Estienne), and from moral corruption to the legal "chicanery" which Hotman so deplored (a product of the mos italicus) .13 But for Huguenots the Italian character was identified most of all with political trickery and tyranny, and it is not surprising that the massacre of St, Bartholomew—the "stratagem," as its first historian, himself an Italian, called it—came to be regarded as the very embodiment of Italianism. Estienne isolated the source of the infection even more precisely: "Among all nations Italy carries off the prize for cunning and subtlety," he wrote, "so it is in Italy with Tuscany, and in Tuscany with Florence." This was his way of indicating that the major share of guilt belonged to Catherine de Medicis and her advisers, who indeed dominated (at least numerically) the discussions which took place in the royal chambers just after midnight on 24 August. Here we see that making of the "legend" of Catherine de Medicis, the whore whose "blood was infected by the buggers of Italy"—a legend to set beside that of the Cardinal of Lorraine, that "devil of a Guise wearing a 13 Estienne, Apologie pour Herodote, ed. P. Ristelhuber (Paris, 1579), I, 353; Le Miroir des franfois (Paris, 1581), p. 31; and see the anti-Italian material in L'Estoile, esp. for the years 1574-75 (pp. 58, 9off) as well as Hotman's pamphlets of that period (see below).

236

KULTURKAMPF priest's dis-guise." Together, declared an imaginative Huguenot versifier, they created "a sodomy of horrible atheism."14 There was an even more convenient symbol for the Italianate syndrome which Huguenots detected in the French body politic, namely, that quintessential Florentine, Machiavelli, whose spectre had just begun to haunt Europe, or at least Protestant Europe. Indeed, the diabolical form of the author of the Prince soon overshadowed even Catherine de Medicis and the Cardinal. According to Hotman's patron, William of Hesse, Machiavelli's book was the "Italian Bible" (die ivelsche Bibel).16 Stories were told that Catherine brought her children up on it; that one of them, Henry of Anjou, carried it around in his pocket; and that the massacre itself was a direct application of the counsel given in the eighth chapter, which was to commit all necessary cruelties in a single blow. In general, warned the Reveille-matin, "The King has been persuaded by the doctrine of Machiavelli that no religion can be tolerated except the one on which the state has been founded." For Machiavelli's world, according to these Protestant characterizations, existed without either law or liberty. Another of Hotman's friends, Innocent Gentillet, published an anonymous remonstrance begging the French King to have Machiavelli's works banned altogether in France (later Hotman himself would try to have the Prince suppressed in Basel); and two years 14

[Estienne], A mervaylous discourse upon the lyfe, deeds, and behaviours of Katherine de Medicis (Heidelberg, 1575), p. ; cf. Reveillematin, introductory poem on "La Paix Valoise." 15 Hesse to the Elector Palatine, 5 Sept. 1572 (Kluckhohn, II, 496). Cf. Jean Boucher, De iusta Henrici tertii abdtcattone (Lyon, 1591), II, 33; Portus, Ad Petri Carpentarii . . . epistolam, p. 31; Reveille-matin, p. 37; and especially Gentillet, Discours sur les moyens de bien gouverner et maintenir en bonne paix un royaume . . . centre Nicolas Machiavel ([Geneva], 1576), and his anonymous Remonstrance au . . . Henri 111 (Frankfurt, 1574), p. 152· For Hotman's criticism of Machiavelli, see Ch. XI, n. 33 below and in general my "Murd'rous Machiavel in France," Political Science Quarterly, LXXXV (1970), 545-59, and the bibliography there cited. 237

KULTURKAMPF

later Gentillet published what has become the locus classicus of this line of thought and in so doing created a new genre. Gentillet's Anti-Machiavel represented not only a kind of devil theory of war and of social pathology but one of the most imposing and influential historical legends of modern times. At the furthest extreme from this infectious "Machiavelisme," according to Huguenot apologists, was the pure and primitive virtue of the French nation. This theme, implicit in the attacks against "Italianized Frenchmen" by Hotman's colleagues L'Estoile, Henri Estienne, and others, became much more explicit in Huguenot propaganda after St. Bartholomew. In another response to Charpentier's pamphlet, for example, Antoine Favre, who had been tutor to Coligny's children, defended the Huguenots on the grounds that even in exile they were the true "patriots." "We who are French are truly frank," he declared in the time-honored pun, "and we never dissimulate in Italian style."16 He went on to sharpen the contrast by underscoring the liberties and good laws which France derived from her Germanic heritage. "If the King violates these," he concluded, "he is no longer a true king but a usurper and a tyrant." In such appeals to the Germanic character of French tradition we can see the outlines not only of an anti-Machiavellian ideal but also of an alternative vision of history which was shaping Hotman's own thinking in a most fundamental way. And to the final formation of this counter-legend, no one contributed more than Hotman himself. G E N E V A , 21 A U G U S T

1573

With the capitulation of Sancerre two days before, the fourth civil war was brought to a close, but Hotman was still carrying on the good fight. He had just finished his masterwork, the Franco-Gallia, and was now dedicating it, ap16 Ad Petri Carpentarii famelici rabulae saevum retinendis armis et pace repudianda consilium . . . responsio (Neustadt, 1575), pp. 4off.

238

KULTURKAMPF

propriately enough, to the sole remaining Calvinist prince of Germany, the Elector Friedrich III of the Palatinate. "In reflecting upon these great calamities I have, for several months past, fixed my attention on what is revealed by all the old French and German historians of our Francogallia, and from their writings I have compiled a summary of its constitution. They showed that our commonwealth flourished in this form for more than a thousand years. From this review it is astonishing to find how great was the wisdom of our ancestors in constituting our commonwealth, and it does not seem possible for me to doubt in any way that the most certain remedy for our great afflictions should be sought in the constitution."17 As this preface suggests, the Franco-Gallia should be considered from at least three points of view. First it illustrates the typical Protestant tendency to identify the ideal with the original character of an institution, so that to a degree Hotman may be regarded as carrying over into the political arena the sort of fundamentalist argument he presented twenty years earlier in his State of the Primitive Church. Hotman later defended some of his more radical views on the grounds that they were merely historical and did not constitute a program, but this was, to say the least, disingenuous.18 Although he claimed to be "throwing a bucket of water" on the fires of civil war by putting things in a longer perspective, he did not disguise the fact that "bloody tyranny" was his target and that in general the "ancient constitution" represented his ideal. Secondly, his book obviously belongs in the tradition of Huguenot propaganda originating in the constitutional crisis following the death of Henry II and commissioned as legal advice on behalf of the leaders of the Huguenot party. This propaganda, to which Hotman himself had made sub17

The edition of the Franco-Gallia used here is the variorum collated by R. E. Giesey and the translation by J.H.M. Salmon (Cambridge, 1972). 18 See n. 44 below and Ch. XII, n. 8 below. 239

KULTURKAMPF stantial though unacknowledged contributions, had con­ cerned itself with the most fundamental questions of obedi­ ence and constitutional principle, including problems of the right of resistance, the identification of "tyranny," and the role of the Estates General. The massacre of St. Bartholo­ mew simply revived these concerns in a more intense form. Finally, the Franco-Gallia ought to be understood as a product of Hotman's longstanding scholarly (and lawyerly) interest in the French legal and institutional heritage— for there is no longer any doubt that the book had been in preparation for at least six years and had originated in a quieter period. His antiquarian interests were stimulated in particular by his association with the Chancellor de l'Hopital, who had gained him admission into the royal li­ brary at Fontainebleau in 1563 and again in 1567, and who in that year commissioned the Anti-Tribonian and appar­ ently had Hotman appointed royal historiographer.19 Cer­ tainly Hotman's astonishing mastery of medieval and mod­ ern historians was the product of a number of years of study. From this point of view the book belongs to a whole complex of works, including the Anti-Tribonian, the De Feudis, his commentaries on Caesar, and certain legal "questions" all completed before St. Bartholomew. It be­ longs also to that renaissance of French antiquities that be­ gan in the 1560's and that included the works of such his­ torians as Etienne Pasquier, Jean du Tillet, Bernard du Haillan, Claude Fauchet, and Hotman's own legal repre­ sentative in Paris, Pierre Pithou. However contrasting the ideological positions of these men, they did share with Hotman a patriotic and antiquarian enthusiasm for the French past. What separated Hotman from these scholars—and what kept his book from being taken seriously as history—was the incorrigible legal-mindedness and partisanship which made him subordinate his massive learning to particular ar19

See Ch. VIII, η. 1 above, and Franco-Gallia, 1586 ed.)

240

p . 171 (1576 and

KULTURKAMPF guments. Although he made significant contributions to historical criticism, he really had neither the patience nor the scruples for that calling; as always his purpose was to build up a case. And of course this tendency was much intensified by the events of August 1572, which undoubtedly led him to sharpen his arguments still more. As he had sought the true religion as a young man, so in this, the major intellectual enterprise of his career, Hotman set off in search of what was best and most fundamental in French political and institutional tradition. He assumed that this political genius was in some way present from the beginning, that there was a primitive constitution of the French people just as there was a primitive church of the Christian people, and that in each case this represented an ideal as well as a historically intelligible condition. In his view the French national character was the product of the confluence of two cultural traditions, the Gallic and the Frankish. Taking his cue from German historians of the previous generation, Hotman rejected any idea of a racial link between the two (as well as the fantastic theory of Trojan origins); but he did believe in a deep similarity between them. France was, as he put it, "one nation formed from the two, as if they had been a twin born people."20 So Hotman combined two of the leading themes about the origin of France: the gaulois view, associated especially with the Celtic enthusiasm of the 1550's, exemplified by Pasquier, Connan, and others; and the "Germanist" view, which became increasingly popular after the outbreak of the civil wars, although Gallicans like Dumoulin and Le Douaren had adopted this position even earlier. The third alternative, that is, the "Romanist" view, Hotman naturally rejected out of hand. Hotman's central theme had to do with the persistence of certain native traits and institutions, above all the Franco-Gallic love of liberty and its institutional manifestations. The first expression of this was represented by re20/Wi., Ch. IV (pp. 183-85).

241

KULTURKAMPF sistance to Rome, which was the very embodiment of "tyranny" and exhibited its three principal "marks": arbi­ trary or "absolute" rule, imposition of foreign mercenaries, and neglect of the public good. This was the case with the Gauls but even more conspicuously with the Franks, the true "authors of liberty," whose very name was synonymous with freedom, and especially freedom from tribute to Rome, whose tax collectors, merchants, and lawyers as well as soldiers had swarmed over Gaul. 2 1 In the face of this common enemy, Hotman believed, the Gauls actually welcomed the invading Franks and the "enfranchisement" they offered. "The Franks . . . freed Gaul as well as their own German fatherland from Roman tyranny." Whence the establish­ ment of "Franco-Gallia." The trouble was that corruption had set in during the past two centuries. "The great beast Rome" was reincar­ nated in the papacy, and once again France was infested with tax collectors, office-holders, mercenary soldiers, and especially pettifogging lawyers, whose lair was the Parlement of Paris. In a later edition Hotman expanded his tirade against this pernicious court which his own father had so well served.22 As in the Anti-Tribonian Hotman lashed out against the "French pox" of chicanery and harked back to the good old days when men lived by good customs alone. He also attacked the pernicious rule of wom­ en, and although his examples were drawn from Merovin­ gian times, the slur upon Catherine de Medicis was ill-dis­ guised (her counterpart Queen Brunheld, Hotman pointed out, also had an Italian "companion in vice," brought her children up in a vicious life, and had blood on her hands). The root of all this evil in modern times, Hotman was con­ vinced (and made explicit in later editions) was "pape23 mania." With all good Gallicans as well as Protestants, κ Ibid., Ch. Ill (p. 177), Ch. IV (pp. i8iff), Ch. V (pp. 201-13, 217-19), Ch. X (pp. 287-89). 22Ibid., Ch. XX, ed. 1576 (p. 523); Ch. Ill (p. 173). ™lbid., Ch. XVIII (XXII, ed. 1586) (p. 433).

242

KULTURKAMPF

Hotman wanted to continue the struggle for liberty— whether the "ancient liberty of the Gallican church" or the "liberty of the Christian man." Hotman was careful not to refer specifically to contemporary problems, but it took (and takes) little acumen to see the radical implications of much of this work. In general what Hotman was doing was to substitute for the old myth of Roman universalism the slightly newer myth of German liberalism. Hotman assumed that all of the virtues attributed by Tacitus to the ancient Germans were inherited also by the Franks, "who issued from the one center and fatherland."24 This bias was reinforced by his reading of modern German historians such as Beatus Rhenanus and Aventinus and perhaps even more by his many contacts with and growing dependence on various German princes, especially the Landgraves of Hesse, to whom he had dedicated a number of works beginning in 1560. In an ideological sense Hotman was moving back toward the land of his ancestors. One striking result of this idealization of Germanic culture was Hotman's rejection of the common theory that feudal institutions had Roman origins. Like Dumoulin and Le Douaren but unlike Cujas, Hotman was happy to point out the Germanic roots both of feudal terminology and of feudal institutions. It may be noted that the argument from the feudal relationship, specifically from its dissolubility in case of felonious action on either side, became an important feature of the resistance propaganda produced by the massacre of St. Bartholomew. "According to feudal law the lord loses his fief for the same reasons that his vassal does, that is, because of felony . . . ," declared the author of the Reveille-matin. "The same goes for the King and his subjects, who are as vassals to him." And he concluded that "the condition of subjects should not be worse than that of serfs."25 24 25

Ibid., Ch. V (pp. 20 iff). Reveille-matin, pp. 90-91, 191. 243

KULTURKAMPF The cornerstone of Franco-Gallican virtue was the principle of popular sovereignty—"the supreme authority of the people," in Hotman's phrase.26 "The kings of Franco-Gallia were made by the right of the people," he declared, "rather than by any hereditary right." It was passed on "not as though it were a private legacy, but by the judgment and votes of the people." Hotman presented historical evidence for this—Caesar testifying for the Gauls and Tacitus for the Germans—but in fact the thesis had a legal basis: namely, the distinction between private law (and the king's person) and public law (and the king's "second body," his office). "A king, like any private man, is mortal; a kingdom is everlasting and, in principle at least, immortal, as the jurists, moreover, speak in these terms regarding collegiate bodies and corporations." This principle of public immortality guaranteed not only the continuity of French tradition but also, it would seem to follow, the permanent validity of its original constitution, including the principle of popular sovereignty. The first corollary of this principle, according to Hotman, was that "the supreme power of deposing kings was also that of the people."27 Hotman gives several examples of the deposition of tyrants, a practice in which he found singular "virtue," and described the preservation of this revered custom under the Carolingians. This was perhaps the most controversial of Hotman's arguments, though he refrained from drawing explicit conclusions about the contemporary monarchy and even denied the legal consequences that issued from the historical "fact" of an originally elective monarchy. But such disclaimers hardly satisfied contemporary critics, who could not doubt that the work was an advertisement for popular monarchy; nor, in view of Hotman's private remarks, can they be taken altogether at face value. Almost equally radical, indeed treasonable in the view of ™ Franco-Gallia, Ch. VI (pp. 229-33); Ch. XIX (pp. 399-403). 27 Ibid., Ch. VII, passim.

244

KULTURKAMPF some Gallicans, including Belleforest, was Hotman's conception of the form of French government, and in this case Hotman did draw legal conclusions. "In constituting the kingdom of Franco-Gallia," he wrote, "our ancestors accepted Cicero's opinion that the best form of a commonwealth is that which is tempered by the mixture of the three kinds of government."28 So Hotman arrived at the discussion of that institution to which most of the Franco-Gallia was devoted. The "sacred council" (Parlement, curia, conventus generalis, Estates General were some of its forms) was the major guarantee not only of the mixed constitution but of the "immortality" of the monarchy. All kings are fallible; Solomon, the wisest of men, was nonetheless seduced even in his old age by young girls. Fortunately there was a sure remedy: "A kingdom has its true and certain source of wisdom in its senators [and nobility, Hotman added three years later], who are experienced in the conduct of affairs and who form, so to speak, the head of the state." "Although a kingdom has lost its king," Hotman continued, "it may remain unimpaired when, as soon as the news of such a disaster is received, a council is summoned, and the leading men meet together to seek a remedy and find reserve forces to meet existing problems." No doubt Hotman had in mind, among other instances, the death of Henry II, though he was careful again not to attribute direct legal relevance to his argument. The powers of this council were considerable. Indeed they constituted a working definition of the notion of sovereignty: the choosing and deposing of kings, declaration of war and peace, control of administration, distribution of royal appanages and dowries, and "affairs of state" in general. To these Hotman later added monetary matters and ™lbid., Ch. X (pp. 293-95, 323>; Ch. XIX (pp. 399-401). Cf. Histoire de la ligue, ed. C. Valois (Paris, 1914), I, 94, and Discours sur les calomnies . . . par les politiques de nostre temps (n.p., 1588; BN, Lb.M434).

245

KULTURKAMPF direction of the church. Much of the Franco-Gallia is devoted to tracing the continuity of this sacred council down to modern times. Less than a century ago, Hotman remarked (referring to the 36 councilors set up under Louis XI), the liberty was still intact.29 It was this institution above all that Hotman wanted to see restored in his own day. This motive became still more prominent three years later in the next edition of the book, where Hotman added many more specific references to the Estates General. In order to support his Franco-Gallican thesis, Hotman had recourse to the widest and most indiscriminate variety of sources. Probably the most crucial was Tacitus, whose description of German customs provided many of the basic themes of the book, especially elective kingship, the right of deposition, and the authority of the council. (Tacitus also led Hotman to his largest assumption, which was that the Franks inherited the virtues and institutions of the early Germanic peoples.) But Hotman also relied upon other classical authors, civil, canon, and feudal law, and "examples" from other societies, such as Greece, Rome, England, and Spain; and he attached great weight to a number of legal formulas quite alien to the Franco-Gallican tradition. The most famous of these were the salus populi of ancient Roman law ("Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law"), the quod omnes tangit of canon law ("What touches all must be approved by all"), and the so-called Aragonese oath ("We who are worth as much as you and can do more than you, elect you as king upon such and such conditions . . ."). 3 0 Hotman, with Beza, did more than anyone else to popularize this legendary formula, "If not, not" (as, according to the interpolation of a later author, it is usually called). In later editions Hotman continued to pile up examples, allegations, and arguments, especially from civil 29

Franco-Gallia, Ch. XVII (p. 415). 30Ibid., Ch. X (pp. 301, 307), Ch. XI (p. 343), Ch. XVIII (p. 451); cf. R. E. Giesey, If Not, Not (Princeton, 1968), pp. 20-24.

246

KULTURKAMPF law. This flagrant eclecticism and dubious sense of historical relevance demonstrate Hotman's legal-minded approach to history and help account for, if not excuse, his distorted view of the actual role of the Estates General. The radical character of Hotman's book, profound though not expressed with perfect frankness, is perhaps best seen in the way that he managed to combine the "question of religion" with the "question of the state"; for unlike the Malcontents on the one hand and theologians like Beza on the other, he did not keep them separate. Here, too, we can see something of the unity of his thought and his vision of the future. "Someone may ask whether we have any remedy to suggest for such ills," he wrote in the concluding chapter of his Franco-Gallia, added in the 1576 edition but omitted in the version published in his collected works at the end of the century. "It is clear that the cause of all these troubles is in part impiety, in part the incredible superstition of our people, which flowed in to us throughout those times from that same font. This shrouded the Christian world like a huge fog, and when the single light of the Christian religion was extinguished as the Holy Scriptures were obscured and buried, all things continued to be weighed down by the thick darkness of superstition. Wherefore . . . let the authority of the Holy Scriptures prevail in France, and the youth of our country devote their energy to studying them. Then without doubt the darkness would be put to flight by the rising sun, and the arts of legal chicanery, together with the superstitions drawn from the same font, would be driven out." POST TENEBRAS LUX was the motto of Hotman's religious cause, inscribed today upon the Monument de la Reformation in Geneva: it might also serve as the expression of his political philosophy. Hotman was proud of his handiwork and sent it to many of his old friends, especially those in Germany and German Switzerland. "For the recuperation and even restoration of our French state," he remarked to Gualter in December, 247

KULTURKAMPF

"my book is of great significance."31 Its influence, soon to be extended by the French translation already in progress, would be evident in writings of other propagandists, including the defamatory Life of Catherine de Medicis, the second dialogue of the Reveille-matin, and the Mirror of the French, the first attributed to Henri Estienne and the others, less plausibly, to Nicolas Barnaud. The former followed and made more personal Hotman's attack (supported by feudal law as well as by history) upon rule by women, while the latter continued the celebration of "the liberty of the Estates" and relied extensively upon Hotman's learning and arguments. The impact of the Franco-Gallia was felt not only in Switzerland and France, especially among the Politiques, but also in Germany, where later it was allegedly assigned to students at the University of Wittenberg. Such free expression of political views did not please everyone, not even Protestant authorities. In July Hotman had received permission from the Genevan council to publish his book, but he was probably lucky to get it.82 In fact the magistrates were more than usually worried about the possibility of invasion from France and were reluctant to endorse any public criticism of this unpredictable neighbor. They were also urged not to stir up any trouble by the ambassador Jean de Bellievre, who had replaced his brother, and who reminded the Genevans that France was the only force standing between them and a general Catholic si To Gualter, 7 Dec. 1573 (Zurich ZB, F. 39, f. i 9 8 r ); cf. nn. 13, 14 above. 32 Geneva AE, RC, 68, ff. 145' (permission to print Franco-Gallia, 7 July), 185', and 2o8T (complaints about it, 21 Sept. and 22 Oct. 1573); ff. i59r, 165' (request and refusal for Beza's book, 30 July and 14 Aug.); f. i36T (26 June, Beza's denial). Cf. Hotman's letters to Tossanus, 27 Feb. 1573, and to Cappel, 12 Jan. 1574 (Ep 35 and 37). On Beza's problems, see the remarks of the two recent editors of his work; Karl Sturm (ed.), De lure Magistratuum (Neukirchen, 1965), and R. M. Kingdon (ed.), De Droit des magistrats (Geneva, 1971); also Fazy, Le Saint-Barthelemy et Geneve, pp. 69-80.

248

KULTURKAMPF

alliance. Under pressure from him and from Bern, in fact, the council refused permission for the printing both of Hotman's French Fury and for Beza's controversial Right of Magistrates (which was in some respects a companion piece to the Franco-Gallia) and later tried to suppress the Reveille-matin. Beza also had to issue a statement that he was not the author of Prisbach's attack on Bellievre's brother and later another that no one aside from his copyist and Hotman would see his Right of Magistrates. Apparently the only reason that Hotman's book evaded censorship was because the council, taking the title of the first chapter ("On the constitution of Gaul before it was reduced to a province by the Romans") as the theme of the whole work, assumed it to be purely antiquarian in character. Anyone who read it, however, knew better, and this included both Henry III and Catherine de Medicis. In September Bellievre registered a formal complaint to the Diet in Soleure. Through his efforts the book was later banned in Bern and elsewhere. The Duke of Savoy, too, issued an edict forbidding the sale or possession of the Franco-Gallia and other such literature. Such condemnations were perhaps an even better measure of the book's success than the various congratulations from Hotman's friends, but it also made him something of a suspicious character. From this time on the council had the ministers check all of his works carefully, even such scholarly treatises as his De Pactis, which they licensed only after being assured that "it had nothing to do with religion or the state."33 Sometimes they required him to make corrections and sometimes to publish anonymously or pseudonymously, and in fact Hotman published no more controversial works under his own name. More often, he found it advisable to have his books (including later editions of the Franco-Gallia) printed elsewhere, especially in Basel and Germany. Always hungry for literary renown, Hotman now had more than he could use. as Geneva AE, RC, 70, f. 23'; cf. below n. 41 and Ch. XII, n. 6.

249

KULTURKAMPF GENEVA, 27 APRIL

1574

Recent events seemed to Hotman to have increased the timeliness of his Franco-Gallia. "A dangerous disorder now troubles the court and Paris, that home of assassins," Hotman wrote to Gualter. "The Duke of Alencon, brother of the King, his brother-in-law the King of Navarre, and Marshal de Cosse are prisoners by order of the King in a chateau near Paris, where the King is staying. In Paris itself more than a thousand persons, nobles, magistrates, and merchants, have been imprisoned. They have taken the name Politiques, and with the help of the King's brother have demanded that the ancient constitution of France be revived by convoking the Estates General. It is the only remedy for all our ills, and at the same time it is the greatest blow that can be struck against tyranny. What will come of the situation? God only knows." 34 But at least Hotman had some consolation in finding apparent support for his FrancoGallican ideas. "In France," he added, "no book is more pleasing or popular, especially among the Politiques." For the past several months things had gone from bad to worse in France. "To go Huguenot-hunting" (aller a la chassee des Huguenots), according to Hotman, had become a veritable proverb. 35 At the end of the previous year, he told Amerbach, the "papists" had made another attack on La Rochelle, where his brother-in-law Prevost was at the time. "I beg God to strike down and root out this tyranny." The situation had grown so alarming that even the moderate Catholics were ready, Hotman understood, to turn against the government. He was right; at the very moment an uprising was being planned by the Malcontents, or Politiques as they were now being called, led by the Duke of Alencon. 34

To Gualter, 27 Apr. 1574 (Zurich ZB, F. 39, ff. 194^971). To Gualter, 5 Nov. 1573, to Amerbach, 12 Jan., and to Tossanus, 27 Feb. 1574 (Zurich ZB, F. 39, ft. 214^15-5 Basel UB, G.II.19, f. i 5 i r ; Ep 35). Cf. Nicolas Pithou's history of the reformation of Troyes published by C. Recordon, Le Frotestantisme en Champagne (Paris, 1863), p. 184, "la chasse aux Huguenots" (just after St. Bartholomew). 35

250

KULTURKAMPF

But this conspiracy had little to do with God or with the "ancient constitution" and nothing at all with Hotman, who actually heard about it only after it had passed. The uprising failed, was betrayed in fact, but it had important results, including not only the disorders reported by Hotman and the resumption of civil war but also the organization of the party of the Politiques. The Politiques: the label was hardly less derogatory at the time in many circles than "Machiavellian," with which indeed it was often synonymous (as it was with "atheist" and "heretic"). In 1564, for example, Cardinal Granvelle had applied this epithet to Coligny.36 Originally this group was a coalition of moderate Catholics, Malcontents, and some Huguenots, which had taken shape, as Hotman seemed to be aware, during the siege of La Rochelle. Its roots, of course, may be traced back to the earliest years of the wars and even, at least indirectly, to the irenic movement of 1561, and in particular to those Moderatores on whom Baudouin and Cassander had pinned their hopes. But it was only the urgent and intense pressure exerted by the crisis of St. Bartholomew that gave definition to this group so plainly lacking any coherent ideological base. It was this group which the Duke of Alencon came to head and which was behind the ill-fated conspiracy of St. Germain discovered in March. So began the fifth civil war referred to in Hotman's letter. A month later Charles IX died, haunted, so the story went, by the ghosts of St. Bartholomew, and once again Hotman's hopes were raised. "Who is so ignorant of our history," he asked Gualter in June, "as not to know that the right of governing during an interregnum belongs to the Estates and to the council?"37 At least he could still hope that Alencon and Henry of Navarre would be freed and that Henry of Anjou would be detained in what Hotman was happy to learn was a very unsatisfactory exile in Po36 37

Francis de Crue, Le Parti des politiques (Paris, 1892), p. 5. To Gualter, 17 June 1574 (Zurich ZB, F. 39, ff. 2o8 r -io r ). 251

KULTURKAMPF land. But once again the Valois disappointed the Huguenots. Within three weeks Henry escaped from Poland and returned to France by way of Italy, arriving at Chambery, the Duke of Savoy's capital, on the second anniversary of St. Bartholomew, and then moving on to Lyon. From friends in Lyon and from Bellievre himself Hotman heard about the details of this trip and of Henry's future policy. The expectation was that Henry would release Alencon and Navarre from detention and come to an agreement with the Politique leader Damville, who had met him in Turin. Once again there were rumors about an invasion of Geneva by French and Italian troops. The one thing certain was that the war in France would continue. 38 GENEVA, 3 MARCH

1575

The Franco-Gallia was an extraordinary success, Hotman told his old friend Jacques Cappel, and now he was busy preparing a second edition which would be much expanded. He had received congratulations from many European friends from Prussia to the Imperial court. "Everyone coming from France," he told Amerbach in July, "says that my book is very effective in defending the right of the people against tyranny." 39 This was confirmed, with some qualifications, from other quarters. In Paris the book was "well received by all men of good sense and all good Frenchmen," as Pierre de l'Estoile recorded in his diary later in the year. "Except," he added, "by certain corrupted Machiavellian and Italianized Frenchmen." Criticism, itself an effective form of praise, was by now also helping to popularize Hotman's book. The man ssTo Bullinger, 2 Sept. 1574 (Zurich ZB, S. 131, f. iog r ). 39 To Cappel (Ep 39); cf. letters to Amerbach, 20 May, 6 and 12 July, and 13 Aug. 1575 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. 163', 165', 167', and Ki. Ar. 18", 242r); to Gualter and Cappel, both 23 July (Zurich ZB, F. 39, f. 202p, and Ep 43); and L'Estoile, p. 89 (1575). 252

KULTURKAMPF

L'Estoile had particularly in mind was Antoine Matharel, a parlementaire in the service of Catherine de Medicis, who published the first major "response" to Hotman's work this very month, though Matharel himself probably had little to do with writing the pamphlet. The moving spirit and legal mind behind the attack was in fact Papire Masson, a protege of Hotman's old nemesis Francois Baudouin, who contributed an introductory "judgment" and would carry on the controversy in the future. At this time Masson was in the employ of Henry III and at work on his great Annals of the French (a more distinguished contribution to the study of history, incidentally, than anything Hotman had to offer). He was also a professor of law at the University of Angers in succession to Baudouin, who had died in October 1573 (in the arms of the Jesuit Maldonnat, it was alleged). Masson himself had studied in the Jesuit college of Clermont, and Hotman would not fail to make a derogatory point of this circumstance. Within a few weeks after Baudouin's death, Masson composed a short elogium. Later he also wrote the official biographies both of Charles IX and of the Cardinal of Lorraine, as well as those of Cujas and Dumoulin. Besides being literally a court historian, Masson had become an intimate of Carlo Boni, Bishop of Angouleme, and a member of Catherine's Italian entourage. It was as a result of such contacts and commitments that he undertook, in collaboration with Matharel, to defend the Queen Mother and the Parlement of Paris and to convict Hotman of sedition. Though in general agreement on certain points of Galilean doctrine, especially regarding independence from the papacy and other features of national pride, Masson and Matharel rejected Hotman's "Franco-Gallican" theories, his politics, and his perspective. For them he was a man of bad faith in a bad cause, a revolutionary wearing a patriot's mask, and an ignorant sophist pretending to be an historian. It is amusing to notice that the "Machiavellian" Matha253

KULTURKAMPF rel charged Hotman with being himself worse than Machiavelli.40 At first it was the latter charge that most disturbed Hotman, and he immediately classed his antagonists—because of their ideological preferences as well as their methods— with those corrupt practitioners of the "Italian method" who swarmed about the Parlement of Paris. In May, with Beza's help, he received permission from the council to print a reply, on condition that it not be under his name; and in July he made a similar agreement for a second reply, for which he also had to make certain corrections.41 Though polemical in tone, Hotman's pamphlets affected to be totally objective. "I shall treat these pettifoggers as they deserve . . . ," he wrote in his letter to Cappel. "For my book is a work of history, the history of a fact. The whole argument turns on a fact. What impudence it is for them to deny this fact when I have not advanced three propositions without witnesses and irrefutable proofs. If they say that I have distorted, forged, or altered the texts, let them publish this. I will accept the challenge at the risk of my head." Of "Henry" MatharePs book Hotman wrote, "It is so stupid and barbarous that I do not know how to reply to it. Perhaps this task will be taken up by some 'Passavant' "—a reference to the pseudonym employed twenty years before by Beza in his satirical attack upon Lizet. Hotman decided to be his own Passavant, though he chose a different pseudonym, "Matago de Matagonibus," which sounded even more Turkish than his real name ("Ottoman" being one spelling). "I have answered M. and M. as they deserve," he wrote to Cappel in July. "They are i0 Ad Franc. Hotomani Franco-Galliam Antonii Matharelli . . . responsio (Paris, 1575), with "Iudicium Papirii Massoni." Masson's biographer Pierre Ronzy (Paris, 1924) conjectures that he authored the whole book, which was shortly followed by Masson's Responsio ad maledicta Hotmani cognomento Matagonis (Paris, 1575). 41 Geneva AE, RC, 70, f. 79' (2 May 1575) and for the second replv f. 119' (5 July). Cf. letters to Cappel, 3 Mar. and 20 Apr. (Ep 39 and

40).

254

KULTURKAMPF merely dogs to whom Semiramis [as he called Catherine de Medicis] has thrown a piece of bread to set them going. They must be beaten off with a stick."42 It took only four days, Hotman later remarked, to compose his "admonition to a stupid cuckoo" (bardocuculus) Matharel; and given the level of this pamphlet, its motto, "responding to the fool according to his folly," was most appropriate. The "cuckoo" was silent, but Masson continued the battle with a "response to the insults of Hotman, calling himself Matago," even though he claimed to hear in Hotman's fulminations "the clash not of arms but only of cymbals"; certainly they were without charity. Finally and most venomously of all came Hotman's "strigil," with which he again flayed Masson. Both of these he distributed widely to friends in Strasbourg, Heidelberg, and elsewhere. Such were the principal entries in this literary duel which, in the best traditions of Renaissance invective, ranged from high seriousness to low comedy. The two dogs that aroused Hotman's anger had attacked him on every front, though they attributed his faults more to malice than to ignorance. Most fundamental, they thought, was his linguistic incompetence, which revealed itself in bad Latin, worse German, and impossible Spanish (referring to his version of the famous Aragonese "if not, not" oath). Beyond and partly because of that he showed the deepest and most perverse misunderstanding of French history. Among the most serious errors were his assumption of a primitive anarchy, his confusion between the principles of election and inauguration, his apparent denial of the principle of heredity, his exaggerated notion of the function of the Estates, his view that women were denied a place in councils of regency, his libels on that most august *2 Among letters treating this duel (aside from those cited in n. 39 above) are those to Amerbach, 9 and 15 June and 10 and 20 Nov. (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. 162', 164% 172', 175'), to Cappel, 20 Apr. and 24 Sept. (Ep 40 and 45), and to Rhedinger, 10 Aug. (Breslau, Rh. 245, No. 184, now in Berlin).

255

KULTURKAMPF court of the Parlement, his incredible attempt to trace the council of peers back to the round table of King Arthur, and his revival of the old political heresy of "mixed government." As they proceeded through Hotman's book chapter by chapter, the authors tried to refute, with varying degrees of success, each of these points. Underlying these specifications was a single more general charge which was bound up with the very nature and pedigree of French society. Hotman himself recognized this when he retided his adversaries' book "anti-Franco-Gallia, or Italo-Gallia." Masson and Matharel objected to Hotman's view that the ancient Gallic language was related hardly at all to modern French but rather (following Beams Rhenanus) to Breton, and even more strongly to his view (contrary to that of Francois Connan, they pointed out) that the language of the Franks was Germanic and unrelated to that of the Gauls. Similarly they disliked Hotman's tendency to link modern French society with the libertarian and feudal institutions of the barbarian tribes that had brought about the ruin of Rome. In general, as Hotman saw it, they were trying to substitute a flagrantly Italian theory of French origins and development for his hybrid Franco-Gallic thesis. This disturbed him more than their offensive general conclusion, which was that "the whole of Hotman's discourse is full of sedition, sycophancy, rebellion, statements unworthy of a Christian, and is nothing more than a game of words."43 "Matago" answered in kind, shamelessly praising the erudition of Hotman, who had been teaching law for more than twenty years. Their linguistic complaints he threw back in their face, calling them in the most derogatory sense "humanists and Latinizers," and deriding them for accepting the Celtic myths of litterateurs like Ronsard. He also attacked them for relying on the authority of the "re-Catholicized Cujas," who also (he remarked) "deserved the lash." A central point, as in contemporary letters to friends, was 43

256

Ad Franco-Galliam . . . responsio, p. 238.

KULTURKAMPF

that his arguments were historical. "Do you not know the difference between a de facto and a de jure question?" he asked. "The Franco-Gallic historian treats a fact, and you are speaking about legal consequences."44 That kings were once elected, for example, was an undeniable fact, and so was the sovereign function of the council. Yet Hotman certainly invited such misunderstanding, for in this same context he added that, according to the civilians, "law originates in fact" (lex ex facto oritur), and he offered no denial that time had in any way nullified the ancient Franco-Gallican constitution. The one exception was the change from elective to hereditary monarchy under the Capetians, and even this "revolutionary" transformation was done only through consent of the council. Hotman's main target, however, was the Italianism of his critics. Italians had turned France into a veritable Sodom, he lamented. "Gabelles, customs, tributes, and public taxes are all in the hands of the Italians," he continued. "All of Lyon is filled with Italian publicans, and so is Paris." It was not that he wanted to identify the French with the Germans, he protested; he was speaking only of historical influence, and he went on to buttress his argument with another forty words of German derivation. But if it came to a choice, he declared, "it would be much better for France if its inhabitants were Germano-Gauls than, as now, ItaloGauls, resulting in treason, perfidy, robbery, atheism, magic, necromancy, and sodomy... ,"45 This was exactly the syndrome which Hotman's friend Innocent Gentillet was at this very time defining in terms of the pernicious doctrines of Machiavelli, whose work Hotman also deplored mightily. Another of Hotman's later beneficiaries, joining a traditional defense of Gallican "liberties" with an idealized discussion of the French constitution obviously drawn from Hotman's book ("Gallo-Francia" was the thinly dis44

Monitoriale, pp. 3, 48, 3off. Ibid., pp. 19-20. Cf. Louis Servin, Vindiciae secundum libertatem ecclesiae gallicanae et defensio regit status Gallo-Francorum (Tours, 45

1590), p. 18.

257

KULTURKAMPF guised name given), asserted what had been merely implicit in Hotman's work, that St. Bartholomew itself was the work of the "Italo-Gauls." On the de facto and de jure levels, the Hotman-Masson controversy did not progress much beyond this kind of quibbling and impressionistic social criticism, but on the ad hominem level it developed rapidly. In order to discredit Hotman, Masson placed him in the intellectual company of a very incongruous group of writers. One was that "prince of atheists" Henri Estienne, whom Masson suspected of being a collaborator and who indeed took Hotman's view of "gynocracy," the rule of women, and Italianism. The other two were among Hotman's least favorite authors: the "Epicurean" Rabelais and—the Huguenots' own choice for "prince of atheists"—Machiavelli. On the other hand he praised the great Cujas, who in contrast to the Genevans preferred law-making to blood-letting, and above all his own mentor Baudouin. "What in this name makes you tremble?" Masson asked.46 If Hotman trembled, it must have been from rage rather than fear, and the reason was the stories which Baudouin had spread and which Masson was now reviving, including the rumor that Hotman had left Strasbourg because of an adultery scandal. Nor had his morals improved, Masson remarked, for the Franco-Gallia had been composed in the taverns and saloons of Germany and Switzerland. Hotman had the last word and plunged with gusto into this kind of personal vituperation against "the rabid and frenetic cuckolded Jesuit Masson." "My wife is nothing to me, and never has been," Hotman quoted Masson as saying. "No wonder," he commented, "since you are like your preceptor Baudouin, who everyone says was a hermaphrodite"; and then he launched into a whole set of punning cucu-variations.47 He returned also to the attack upon 46

Responsio ad ?naledicta, f. 5'. Strigil, p. 17; cf. Franco-Gallia, Ch. XIII, ed. 1576 (p. 101), and Ch. XX (p. 168). 47

258

KULTURKAMPF

Ecebolius-Baudouin and his Balduinical bestialities which nauseated so many readers. Like him Masson argued "Jesuidy" and was a protege of Hotman's old "tiger," the Cardinal of Lorraine. On this level, too, Hotman was still carrying on his propaganda campaign of fifteen years before. Meanwhile Hotman was working on the third edition of the Franco-Gallia. He wanted both to expand and to sharpen it, partly to answer such critics as Masson, who, he remarked, deserved to be beaten to death. With the help of advice from such friends as Gualter, Cappel, Simler, and Amerbach, it would be a fifth (Hotman estimated a third) longer than the original. He added many new examples and authorities and insisted more strongly on the Estates General as the vehicle of popular sovereignty. He also wanted to make sure that it was well printed on good paper and carefully proofread, since many nobles would be reading it. So he wrote to Amerbach, who was requested to watch over its publication in Basel. He was in contact also with a Genevan printer, though he had litde hope of obtaining permission from the council at this point. The Basel negotiations also proved futile. In the end the work appeared in Cologne trie following year. By this time there was also a French translation, though Hotman was very displeased with it, and the next year another version would be published by Hotman's friend and collaborator Simon Goulart, one of the most prolific of all Genevan propagandists, martyrologists, and historians. There were other attacks on Hotman's book besides Masson's.48 One was by Matteo Zampini, another protege of Catherine, who wrote a treatise on the Estates General, denying any links with sovereign power and even the obligation of the King to call them. Later Zampini would come 48

Zampini, Degli Stati de Francia, e della lor potenza (Paris, 1578); Belleforest, Les Grandes Annates et histoire generate de France (Paris, 1579), dedication to Henry III, and AivT; Bodin, Les six livres de la Republique (Paris, 1576). Still another attack was Pierre Turel, Contra Othomani Francogalliam libellus (Paris, 1575). 259

KULTURKAMPF into conflict with Hotman over the still thornier problem of succession. Another critic was Francois de Belleforest, who was a royal historiographer as well as an apologist for St. Bartholomew and a rabid humaniste italianisant. Insisting that the Gaulois italianises as well as the Francs-gaulois belonged to French tradition, Belleforest defended the absolute majesty of the King against "the iniquity of those" who "dredge up who knows what laws of election to arm the people against the King and to give the nobility more power than it has by right." The most famous of all defenses of "absolute sovereignty," Jean Bodin's Republic, may also have been provoked in part by the Franco-Gallia, though neither Hotman nor Bodin honored the other by a public reply. From these and other reactions it is clear that in many ways Hotman set the terms for political debate in the later sixteenth century by placing issues in historical perspective and in a controversial conceptual framework. Harking back to the quasi- (or crypto-) constitutionalist tradition of authors like Seyssel and Jean de Terre-Rouge, he offered an attractive alternative to the royalist-parlementary tradition of men like Chasseneux (whose Catalogue of the Glories of the World Hotman found "the stupidest book in the world"), Bodin, and to some extent even Dumoulin. The one thing he certainly did not do was, as he declared, to "throw a bucket of water on the fires of civil war." On the contrary, by shifting the discussion from the level of political and religious principles to that of constitutional history and national tradition and by invoking a sort of racial bias, he helped to intensify the polarization of French society. What had been a political and confessional debate was transformed into a veritable Kulturkampf. GENEVA, 23 JULY

1575

Meanwhile the blood war was more than keeping pace with the pen war. "There is no hope of peace," Hotman re260

KULTURKAMPF marked to Gualter, and indeed one Huguenot pamphleteer denounced as Machiaveliste anyone who opposed this just war.49 In Provence, as Hotman told another German friend, Crato von Crafftsheim, even the Catholics had taken up arms against the Italianate tyranny; and party lines were increasingly difficult to distinguish. During the first two years of Henry Ill's reign there had been a number of confused allegiances, futile negotiations, and scattered fighting, mostly outside of Hotman's purview. The Cardinal of Lorraine had died the previous December, but Catherine de Medicis, who had changed her policy significantly since St. Bartholomew, seemed more threatening than ever. Counteracting this, ostensibly, was the rapprochement of the Huguenots and the Politiques, but Hotman was somewhat distrustful, especially when Marshal Damville placed himself at the head of the coalition and when Alencon escaped from court in the fall and joined it. The truth is that Hotman could never quite learn to trust those "papists called Politiques."50 He was much more hopeful of the leadership in his own party. The previous fall the Prince of Conde had been welcomed to Geneva, where he discussed affairs with the council and received a gift of local wine from them. He was also granted a loan and the services of Theodore Beza for his fortune-hunting in Germany. In this Conde was moderately successful, obtaining some military aid in particular from the Calvinist prince Johann Casimir, second son of Hotman's patron, the Hector Frederick III of the Palatinate, so that he was able shortly to issue a call to arms for the "liberation" of the French state from tyranny. But while Hotman was no doubt privy to many of Cond6's machinations, there is no evidence that he was involved directly; most of his surviving letters are to Amerbach and concern publishing problems. During the winter he was also sick and had to send to Basel for medi49

To Gualter, 23 July 1575 (Zurich ZB, F. 39, f. 202'). Cf. Epistre aux delicats et fiatteurs Machiavelistes (n.p., 1575; BN, Lb.*4 100). 60 To Gualter, 17 Nov. 1575 (Ep 46).

261

KULTURKAMPF cine for eye trouble. 51 Still the confused fighting continued in France, and Hotman found it increasingly difficult to keep his spirits up. When peace finally did come in May 1576, Hotman could hardly believe it; when it was undeniable, he could not put any trust in it. Nevertheless, the pacification opened the way for the return of many refugees, especially the exiled ministers, to France. Hotman himself had several chances to go back; the Duke of Alencon, for example, offered him his old position at the University of Bourges. For Hotman, however, twice burned was enough. So a little later he likewise turned down an offer of a place in the "chamber of the edict" in Montpellier (one of the experimental "two-party courts" established by the pacification). "Every day we expect to hear of new butcheries and new massacres," he lamented to Amerbach, "unless God in his great mercy protects our brothers from the persecutions of the tyrant." 52 France being out of the question, Hotman might have looked to Germany, the land of his forebears and his constitutional ideals. As one Huguenot publicist wrote at this time (punning on the erroneous but universally accepted etymology), the German princes were "brothers germane to the French and linked by a common tie of religion." And in fact Hotman did receive offers of assistance from several of these ideological relatives, including the Electors of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse.53 Most attractive was the offer of a professorship at the University of Marburg from William of Hesse, who warned him from even considering a return to France. But this, too, Hotman rejected, though he later sent one of his sons to study there. He was no long51

To Amerbach, 13 Nov. 1575 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 174'). To Amerbach, 28 June, 7 July and 20 Aug. 1576 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. i79r, 180% 182'); and to Johann Crato von Crafftsheim, 9 May 1576 (Breslau, Rh. 249, No. 18, original lost in World War II, copy in Neuchatel BP, 1915, unpaginated). 53 To Amerbach, 9 May, 16 June 1576 (Basel UB, G.II.19, #· J 77' and 1781); Declaration des causes . . . (Montauban, 1574; LN 789), f. Biir. 52

262

KULTURKAMPF er young, and while he did not think of Geneva as his home, he could not bring himself to uproot his family again and to move to still another place of refuge. Yet the alternative was equally bleak. "My wife deplores our fortunes day and night," he confessed to Cappel. "She sees me growing old, burdened with nine children, exiled, in need of strength and wisdom."04 At the height of his public acclaim, Hotman was reaching the nadir of his personal fortunes. 54

To Cappel, 12 Jan. 1575 (Ep 37).

263

XI. De Profundis GENEVA-BASEL,

1576-1584

"Kings really do play ball with the lives of men." Hotman, 1580 GENEVA, 24 AUGUST 1576

ON this grim anniversary Hotman sat down to write a note to Louis, another of the Landgraves of Hesse. "When I see the condition of my fatherland," he reflected, "it makes me think that I will be spending my old age in exile. But because it is God's will that I should be honored with this burden in His name, I bear my cross not only with patience but even with joy."1 Instead of returning to France, where the fifth civil war was threatening to break out, Hotman continued to teach in Geneva and to cultivate his German acquaintances. In November of this year he went on a mission for Louis' brother William to the new Elector Palatine, Louis VI, who opposed the Genevan doctrine and had begun to restore Lutheranism to his territories. By the end of the month Hotman was back home and continuing his services, largely journalistic, to William and George of Hesse. His letters to the latter and to Amerbach are almost the only record of his activities over the next two years. "The condition of France is desperate," Hotman wrote on his return to Geneva. As far as he could see there was no alternative between the destruction of the Guises and that of the crown itself. Yet his condition in Geneva was worse than ever, and his letters are filled with complaints about his poverty, the difficulty of getting books, and requests for assistance from friends, especially Amerbach. At one point an opportunity to return to France seemed to present itself once again, when the Duke of Alencon offered him a posi1

T o Louis of Hesse, 24 Aug. 1576 (Ep 56).

264

DE

PROFUNDIS

tion as Maitre des Requites with a stipend of 1,200 livres. Hotman accepted, not without misgivings, but once again his hopes was dashed. Alencon, after being reconciled with his mother and his brother the King, turned against his old Huguenot allies. Shortly after this, at the beginning of 1577, the sixth war began, plunging Hotman into deeper gloom. "This new French madness has upset me so much," he wrote to Amerbach after hearing the news, "that I do not know what to do. . . . W e are suspended between hope and misery, and we expect to see heavenly fire descend to destroy this Italo-French Sodom and Gomorrah." 2 In this mood Hotman commented on and lamented over the increasingly confused and self-serving clashes in his homeland. One of his informants was the demagogic exmonk and Calvinist pastor Peter Dathenus, minister of the late Elector and then of Johann Casimir, who unlike his brother Louis clung to the Genevan confession. Dathenus had just returned from Languedoc and would soon, as Hotman told Amerbach and George of Hesse, carry his news on to Basel and then Germany. 3 From such contacts, including some in Lyon and Paris, Hotman continued to provide a steady stream of information about events in France. It may seem curious that despite his current enthusiasm for the Estates General, Hotman showed little interest in the Catholic-dominated assembly at Blois, but he did follow political, military, and (as always) religious affairs with close attention. Nothing, however, seemed to offer any encouragement.

GENEVA, 15 FEBRUARY

1577

One significant political phenomenon caught Hotman's eye at this time, and he reported it directly to George of Hesse. 2

To Amerbach, 5 Feb. 1577; cf. 16 and 28 June, 12 July, and 1 Aug. 1576 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. 184% 178', 179% 242', 241'). 3 To Amerbach, 8 Jan., and to Hesse, io Jan. 1572 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 183'; Darmstadt HSA, A. LV, K. 50, F. 3, No. 1).

265

DE

PROFUNDIS

"I am sending your grace the pacts of a new conspiracy made in France by the Duke of Guise," he wrote. "It is a copy of the one made in Picardy before the defection of the Duke of Alencon. I am also including the new edict of the King, which (as all informed men believe) is aimed at the destruction of the kingdom of France and at the profit of the Roman religion."4 He had put his finger on what would be the major source of France's troubles for years to come and certainly for the rest of his life. What Hotman sent was the act of organization of the Holy League, both a printed and a manuscript copy, which Henry III was distributing to the various provinces. This document—an "association among princes, lords, gentlemen, and others of the ecclesiastical as well as the Third Estate inhabiting the Duchy of . . . [name left blank]"— was modeled on the League of Peronne, established after the Peace of Monsieur the previous year, when to the infuriation of many Catholics the government of Picardy was given as surety to the Prince of Conde. The commander of the territory, Jacques d'Humieres, founded the association to obstruct Conde and to resist the edict of pacification in general. After various cities throughout France had joined this "league of the holy trinity," it was seized upon by the Guises and then by the King himself to strengthen the position of the Catholics in the provinces. It is amusing to notice the similarity of the political basis of this league, at least in rhetoric, to Hotman's own constitutional position, in that it proposed "to restore to the provinces and estates of this kingdom . . . the rights and ancient liberties which they had enjoyed since the time of Clovis, the first Christian king." In their own way they, too, wanted "to restore the ancient constitution." Hotman sent to George of Hesse another interesting document associated with the beginnings of the Catholic League in France. This was the notorious little pamphlet 4

To Hesse 15 Feb. 1577 (Darmstadt HSA, No. 2); cf. Conspiration faicte en Vicardie . . . (tup., 1J76; BN, Lb.84 144). 266

DE

PROFUNDIS

entitled "Summary of a brief discourse delivered before the Pope by some of his counselors after the departure of the Bishop of Paris, found among the papers of the advocate David."5 The story goes that Nicolas David, advocate in the Parlement of Paris and agent of the Guises, died in Lyon on his way back from Rome and left this report among his belongings. The argument was almost a caricature of ultramontanism. Besides renewing demands for the extermination of Protestantism, the pamphlet represented the house of Guise as taking precedence over that of Valois because it was descended from Charlemagne; hence it was historically prior and, more important, enjoyed papal benediction. The tone of the pamphlet was so radical that it aroused suspicions even among contemporaries that it was a Protestant composition designed to discredit the League in general and the Guises in particular. That it was indeed a pseudograph seems probable in view of the fact that the Carohngian thesis was identical with that promulgated and attacked by the Huguenots in the propaganda surrounding the conspiracy of Amboise. It seems all the more likely considering the circumstance that Hotman, who had played so active a role in that conspiracy, sent to George of Hesse a Latin translation of the work just after the French version had appeared—and (what makes it more interesting) sent it in the form of unbound, uncut, and even unfolded octavo sheets, literally hot off the press. Where he obtained it he does not say, but he may well have been involved in publishing the pamphlet. Was Hotman up to his old underground propagandizing tricks again? In any case he could no longer have placed much hope in negotiation, and none of the political groupings that he could perceive were in any way reassuring. In the resurgence of the old feudal associations (confraternitates) s Summa legationis Guysianicae ad Fontificem Max. deprehensa nuper inter chartas Davidis Parisiensis Advocati, in Darmstadt HSA, MS cited; translation in ML, I, 1-7. Cf. Histoire de la ligue, ed. C. Valois (Paris, 1914), I, 73; L'Estoile, 127; see also Ch. V, n. 19, above.

267

DE

PROFUNDIS

in the provinces he saw nothing but trouble. Nor could he trust the alliance with the moderate Catholics, who would never tolerate two religions, he was convinced, and whose company would only demoralize the Huguenots. He was confirmed in this opinion by the defection of Marshal Damville, a man who styled himself "chief of the Politiques," but whom Hotman thought of as an "apostate."6 Still more distressing was the threat of the "Tridentine League," as Hotman called it, which was now joined by Geneva's perennial enemy, Savoy. Meanwhile, war was becoming a way of life, and the official "peace" declared in September had little practical effect. Attacks on La Rochelle and other Huguenot strongholds continued, and foreign mercenaries, Spanish as well as Italian, continued to be brought in; 4,000 arrived in November, Hotman reported. The recent edict devaluing money, he told Amerbach, had extended royal "tyranny" to the merchants, too. Even the revival of Calvinist churches seemed to promise only further oppression. The hand of "Pharoah" was everywhere, but Hotman could no longer see even a potential Moses. Morally, too, French society presented the most lamentable picture of corruption, and like his friend Henri Estienne, Hotman was inclined to attribute this to the "Italian mores" introduced by Catherine de Medicis. This seemed to be confirmed by the scandalous stories, in which Hotman was only too ready to believe, about the King's mignons and the sensational murder of Bussy d'Amboise, which exemplified respectively the Italianate practices of sodomy and assassination.7 Given such circumstances and his own growing despondency, it is not surprising that Hot6

To George of Hesse, 6 Aug. 1577; cf. 20 Sept., 10 Nov., 31 Dec. (Darmstadt HSA, MS, nos. 3-6); to Amerbach, 17 Aug., 12 Dec, and to Zwinger, 13 Nov. 1577 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. 190% 191', 193% 1947-, G.II.37, f. 72"). 7 To Amerbach, 16 Mar. 1577, 1 Feb. 1578, and to George of Hesse, 9 Feb. and 4 May 1578 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. 228', 237'; Darmstadt HSA, MS, nos. 9, 11).

268

DE

PROFUNDIS

man was coming to accept his party's propaganda without any question. For him life, public life at least, had indeed resolved itself into a struggle between the children of light and the forces of absolute evil. GENEVA, Ι JULY

1578

Hotman still had his private world, of course, but this, too, he found increasingly unsatisfactory; and indeed he had decided not to remain in Geneva. His position, compared with what he had enjoyed at Bourges, seemed precarious and rather insignificant for a man of his scholarly reputation. Just now, he told Amerbach, he was finishing a course on the Institutes; then once again he would move on with his family.8 Yet Geneva had long been a second home to Hotman, and this particular period of six years repre­ sented perhaps the most crucial stage of his private pilgrim­ age. If he left without regrets, he could not leave without powerful and not altogether unpleasant memories; and as always these would be associated with his main job, which was educating the young. The academy of Geneva, where Hotman had been a ma­ jor attraction for over five years, had been founded by his spiritual father Calvin in 1559; and its fortunes had been watched over from the beginning by his old friend Beza, who had come from Lausanne just the year before as a re­ sult of the anti-Calvinist policy of his employers in the Council of Bern. Beza had been elected first rector of the school and joined Calvin in the teaching of theology. Even after succeeding Calvin as "moderator" of the Genevan church in 1564 he continued to hold a professorial chair 9 and, in effect, to direct the academy. β Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 197'. * Essential for documentation is C. Borgeaud, Histoire de I'Universite de Geneve (Geneva, 1900), pp. 123ft; also P.-F. Geisendorf, La Vie quotidienne au temps de I'escalade (Geneva, 1952), pp. 45^. 269

DE

PROFUNDIS

Under Beza the academy, which replaced that of Lausanne as the official educational institution of Calvin's church, flourished. Beza succeeded in attracting a distinguished faculty, including his and Hotman's old colleague Jean Ribit, Francois Portus, and (at least for a short time) Petrus Ramus. Although Calvin's old critics in Bern were not pleased, his friends throughout Europe supported the enterprise by encouraging students to come and even, as in the case of the Elector Frederick III and William of Hesse, by providing subsidies. In 1564, the year of Calvin's death there were 1,500 students, 300 of them in the public school. They came from all over Europe—from Germany, France, the Netherlands, Poland, England, and Scotland as well as Switzerland. The religious wars and the plague (especially in the years between 1567 and 1572) were discouraging but did not prevent the academy from becoming the leading French Protestant school in Europe, making Geneva in a sense the Paris as well as the Rome of the Calvinist world. According to the original statutes established by Calvin (and modeled in part on those of Strasbourg and Lausanne), there was to be both a "private school," or gymnasium, and a "public school." The former was devoted to instruction in the liberal arts and, like that of Lausanne, contained seven "classes"; the latter consisted of seven "public professors" for Hebrew, Greek, philosophy, and theology. Though intended mainly as a theological seminary, the school added professorships both in law and in medicine in 1575. Like the Calvinist church, of course, the academy was controlled by the city government. Under Beza this was managed through educational commissioners, called "scholarchs" in imitation of the Strasbourg officials, responsible to the council. What is perhaps most interesting, the Genevan academy was a completely "free" school and so, in the view of some of its admirers, a forerunner of modern public education. In accordance with Calvin's social views and the academy's responsibility to the council, discipline was compre270

DE

PROFUND1S

hensive and, at least in theory, somewhat rigid. T o gain admission, students were expected to sign a confession of faith (though apparently not all of them did so); to graduate they needed a certificate both of academic achievement and of good conduct. Life was hard. Only the master had a chair; students sat on hard benches; everyone had to put up with unheated rooms with windows protected only by paper. Classes were nine hours a day, four days a week, and of course there were many fewer holidays than "papists" enjoyed—three weeks in autumn, two weeks at harvest time, and a couple of days at the three or four annual fairs. As at Lausanne and Strasbourg, fun and frivolity of all sorts were frowned upon. By order of the council there were to be no games of dice or cards, no tennis during class hours, no plays, no frequenting of taverns, and no reading of such dangerous authors as Rabelais. The extent of this legislation, which includes a prohibition even of "wasting time," suggests that it is accurate more as a representation of student life-style than of academic control. Yet enforcement there undeniably was. Punishment for infractions consisted of private censure by the Company of Pastors, of public apology in the presence of the whole school, or in the case of criminal offenses, of imprisonment. This was the sentence of one student in 1568, for example, when he beat another one bloody. In 1567 there was a case in which a student, caught stealing "in order to arm himself to go to war," was hanged; and though the sentence was not official, the council did not prevent its being carried out. The student body was divided into two groups, one "ordinary" and the other "alumni," that is, ministers sent out and expected to return to foreign congregations. During the winter of 1572-1573 this included refugees from St. Bartholomew, who were maintained by a contribution of 4,100 livres collected under the auspices of the academy. Most students were in theology, but a growing number came to take law after the arrival of Hotman in 1572. There are no precise figures, but something may be learned from the 271

DE PROFUNDIS "Book of the Rector," in which students were supposed to sign the confession of faith. In 1578, 69 took the trouble to do this. At least 18 of them were enrolled in the law course, as compared with 26 in theology, 20 in liberal arts, and only 3 in philosophy or medicine. Of the law students many came from noble families, including a number of Hotman's students—the barons of Nachod-Danovicz, Horean, Slawata, Cornberg, Witzthum, a Duke of Luneburg, and children of Michel de l'Hopital. Most came from Germany and the Netherlands (seven and eight respectively), especially from Hesse and Frisia, four were from France, and one from Scotland (a certain "David Hume").10 It is obvious that what unity this academic community possessed had a confessional rather than a cultural basis, and indeed religious obligations weighed heavily upon faculty and students alike. Religious services were held daily, and while they were mandatory only for theology candidates, law students were not exempt. Hotman, for example, began each class, five times a week, with a prayer (which was later printed with his legal works). Scholastically, the academy of Geneva followed much the same pattern as Lausanne, resuming in particular the practice of holding disputations once a month. These disputations, carried on by law as well as theology students and open to Catholics as well as Protestants, constituted a breeding ground for future proselytizers and propagandists, which the Genevan academy was expected to train. At first glance Hotman would seem to have a useful and fairly comfortable position. He was among friends, and since 1553 he had been inscribed as a "bourgeois" of the city. Now, as first professor of law, he held the rank of "spectabile" and enjoyed most of the privileges of the ministers themselves. His salary was 800 florins, 100 more than 10

Le Livre du recteur de VAcademie de Geneve, ed. S. StellingMichaud, I (Geneva, 1959), 102; Hotman to Amerbach, 1 Apr. 1577 and 22 Jan. 1578 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. i86r, 195').

272

DE PROFUND1S 11

the second professor, Ennemond Bonnefoy, and twice as much as it would have been a decade before, though for a time he received part of it in grain. As usual he could add to his income by taking in pensionary students and provid­ ing legal counsel for the city. At the same time, he was able to continue his scholarly pursuits, and indeed he published some twenty separate works during this period. Yet Hotman had much to complain about. At first he had taught an "extraordinary" course on the Code at four o'clock in the afternoon, while his colleague Bonnefoy lec­ tured on the Digest at seven in the morning. After Bonnefoy's death early in 1574, however, he was obliged to take over his classes as well.12 Although he received an extra stipend for this, he found the teaching load excessive and requested only one extra class instead of two, that is, a total of three instead of four, with a consequent cut in salary. For this reason he tried to entice other scholars to come to Ge­ neva, including Cujas' protege Francois Roaldes and his own friend Jacques Cappel, but he was unsuccessful. This was one of the reasons he concluded that there had actually been "little progress" in the study of law at Geneva. In 1575 Hotman was finally joined by a second professor of law, a Venetian named Giulio Pace de Beriga, but he remained unhappy with his position. Still more distressing were Hotman's financial problems. Three years earlier, his mother had sold his patrimony of Villiers, it seems, and he had lost money as well to a certain Beauclerc, who had represented him in the Parlement of Paris (the details of both transactions are unknown). The growing inflation in Geneva worried all the professors and ministers, and they complained continuously about it. In 1577 a raise of 100 florins was granted, but this did not suf11 Geneva AE, RC, 68, f. u o r (26 Apr. 1573); 69, ff. 5Γ, 59' (11 and 19 Mar. 1574). 12 Amerbach, 30 Mar. 1574, and to Cappel, 12 Jan. 1575 (Basel UB, G.II.I9, f. 239'; Ep 37).

273

DE

PROFUNDIS

fice for Hotman. 13 He was forced to supplement his income in a variety of ways: through consultations commissioned by the council, by William of Hesse, and by the Elector Palatine (who paid ioo florins, for example, for one of Hotman's briefs in March 1576); through dedications to George of Hesse (40 talers for his De Rebus creditis in 1577), to the Electors of Saxony, to Nicolas Rhedinger (prefect of Breslau and friend of the Silesian Hotmans), and to others, mainly German nobles; and through his news reports, especially to his "Maecenas" William of Hesse, who sent money from time to time by his messenger. But Hotman would never succeed in getting his financial affairs in order, and from this time on he was increasingly dependent upon his friends' help. These troubles were much complicated by Hotman's declining health and especially by the large family, including eight or nine children, which he was trying to raise in exile, and which, he complained, seriously interfered with his work. His eldest son Jean was about to go off, or had already gone off, to Paris, where he became a tutor in the household of the English ambassador to France, Sir Amias Paulet, and then followed him to England, where he made the acquaintance of many scholars and statesmen and later the Queen herself.14 Jean Hotman, at least, his father never had to worry about. Three years later he received a degree at Oxford University and went on to a distinguished career as secretary—"eavesdropper-in-chief," said Motley—to the Earl of Leicester. Later he would be one of Hotman's primary links with the English and Dutch Protestants. But Hotman was still left with eight children, three of them girls. Of the olders sons, one (Theages, godson of 13 George of Hesse to Hotman, 1 Feb. 1578 (Ep 63); see Gautier, Histoire de Geneve, V, i6off. "Paulet to Cecil, 21 Oct. 1579 (CSP, For., Eliz., 67). On Jean Hotman see David Baird Smith in Scottish Historical Review, XIV

(1917), 147-66.

274

DE

PROFUNDIS

Peter Martyr) was taken into the household of the Chatillons and later would fight in the wars in France; another (Daniel) had been sent to the Elector Palatine in Heidelberg; and others had been shipped off to Marburg under the protection of William of Hesse.15 Pierre, who knew German but who was "a stranger to literature," was apprenticed to a merchant in Zurich. The trouble-maker of the family was Daniel. In Marburg, where he came in September 1578, he somehow upset the man who was assigned as his tutor (Ferinarius); and having given the impression of being "without either virtue or knowledge," he was sent back home to his father. The ensuing conflicts between Hotman and this recalcitrant son may well have reminded him, in a distorted way, of his own youthful rebelliousness. To these difficulties were added the external threats to Geneva, and these weighed most heavily of all upon Hotman. First there was the continuing menace of Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, who was still carrying on intrigues against Geneva, and who had concluded an alliance with the Catholic cantons just the year before. Periodically, too, especially from the spring of 1577, Geneva was threatened by hired Spanish troops traveling from Italy to the Netherlands. In October a panic was caused by the presence of a band of these men scarcely five leagues from the city gates. Throughout the winter rumors were flying about an imminent attack to be led by the Duke of Savoy, the Duke of Nemours, and the King of France; and in April preparations were made for the defense of the city. For a time things were critical enough to inspire an offer of direct aid by the King of Navarre. During the summer the immediate danger passed, but the general anxiety remained. In August 1578 Hotman himself contributed to the resistance by compiling a consultation, at the council's request, 15 To Gualter, 28 Feb.; from William of Hesse, 3 Sept., and from Ferinarius, 21 Sept. 1578; to Stuckius, 3 July 1582 (Ep 64, 68, 70, no).

275

DE

PROFUNDIS

against the claims of the house of Savoy and of the Empire.16 No less disturbing was the threat of the plague, whose visitations were periodic and often annual and whose victims were considerably more numerous. In the summer of 1578, after a five-year siege, Hotman requested permission to take his family and his few students out of the city; apparently it was not an unusual petition, and the council agreed. Later Hotman's daughter Theodorula fell sick and was again sent to the relative safety of the countryside. "This climate is tolerable neither to myself nor to my children," he told Basilius Amerbach, the son of his old patron and Theodorula's godfather, "and we are attacked by a spreading disease. Added to this are the violence and terrors which interfere with my studies. This is why I want to move to your city, if you do not mind bothering to make the arrangements."" In this Hotman did not have much choice. He certainly could not go to France, where the war was raging, and hardly to Strasbourg, where he was no longer welcome (except by a few friends and relatives). Nor would he be at home either in Lutheran Germany, which by now, with the death of Frederick III in 1576, included the Palatinate, or in England, though he still had friends there and later received an invitation to teach at Oxford. By request of William of Orange, the great scholar Justus Lipsius invited him to come to the newly founded (1574) University of Leiden, but this seemed to him no less dangerous than Geneva.18 (This position was later taken, for a time, by his old friend 16

"Sur les pretentions contre la cite de Geneve, soit a cause du vicariat d'empire, soit a cause du vidomnat," dated 25 June 1579, cited by Dareste, Revue historique, II (1876), 387. 17 Hotman to Amerbach, 25 May 1578 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 1961); Borgeaud, Histoire de VUniversite de Geneve, p. 277. 18 From Janus Douza, founder of the University of Leiden, 20 Oct. 1578, and Hotman to Gravellius, Bartomerius, Petavius, Faius (his cognati), 30 May 1583 (Ep 72, 122); Doneau to Amerbach, Heidelberg, 21 Sept. 1576 (Basel UB, G.II.16, 259'"*). 276

DE PROFUND1S Hugues Doneau.) So he decided to move to Basel, a relatively quiet and independent place between Scylla and Charybdis, as he put it, where a French church was still tolerated. Doneau had already provided a letter of recommendation on his behalf, while Amerbach was arranging for housing for Hotman and his family and trying to answer his anxious questions about teaching conditions and opportunities for outside legal work. In August 1578, then, Hotman pulled up his roots once again. To a friend in Zurich he summed up his decision in this way. "You have no idea what terrors Geneva has held during the last three years and how fast they have come, especially disturbing to a family man like myself. I have often seen my wife and daughters so frightened that they could hardly restrain their tears. I finally decided to give in to their wishes, especially when we were threatened with the additional danger of the plague. The Landgrave [of Hesse] and other friends urged me to return to Strasbourg, but the sorry state of the French church there dissuaded me. In Basel the French church is recognized by the council, and so I have chosen to live here."19 So, in a cultural as well as confessional sense, Hotman moved further into exile. BASEL, 12 OCTOBER

1578

Upon his arrival about a month before, Hotman had been greeted by a number of old friends, among them Amerbach, Grynaeus, and Zwinger, and by Simon Sulzer, the Antistes.20 Sulzer also invited members of the university faculty, and Jean Virel, pastor of the little French church. Hotman had settled into the house which Amerbach had found for him, in fact an old monastic establishment just across from the Munsterkirche (14 or 15 Mentelinhof), and had re19

To Gualter, 8 Sept. 1578; cf. to Stuckius, same date (Ep 67, 129); also to Amerbach, 1 and 19 July, and to Zwinger, 19 July 1578 (Basel UB, G.II.19, ff. 197', 198'; Fr.Gr.II. 28, f. 134'). 20 T o Gualter, 12 Oct. 1578 (Ep 71). Cf. Jacques Pannier, "Hotman en Suisse," Zwmgliana, VII (1939-43), 165-66.

277

DE

PROFUNDIS

sumed his teaching of civil law at the university where he had received his doctor's degree twenty years before. At first glance there seems to be no reason why Hotman should not have been content with his new, and certainly safer, position. Yet such was not the case. Hotman was impressed favorably neither by Sulzer nor by his hospitality, and once again he began to complain to friends, this time on religious rather than on personal grounds. The main problem was the growing unpopularity of the Calvinist community with the city council and with Sulzer, who was in touch and apparently in sympathy with Marbach and the ultra-Lutherans of Strasbourg. Hotman could not have been much surprised at this. He had seen a similar reaction at Strasbourg twenty years earlier. Just two years before, moreover, Lutheranism had triumphed in the Rhine Palatinate, impelling his friend Doneau to leave for Leiden. What made matters worse for Hotman was the condition of the French church itself. "Doctrine has been reformed," he remarked to Gualter, "but discipline is deformed." Even the papists were laughing, he added.21 Getting along with the Germans was made particularly difficult at this time because of a new issue, or rather a new version of the old Flaccian-Philippist uproar, that was arousing Lutherans. This was the debate over the so-called "Formula of Concord," which was the work mainly of Jacob Andreae, the Tubingen theologian and former protege of Christoph von Wurttemberg, who (according to the Huguenot view) had conspired against them with the Cardinal of Lorraine at the conference of Saverne in 1562. Since 1575 an attempt had been made to define Lutheran doctrine by condemning the interpretation of Melanchthon—and so naturally to alienate further the Calvinists with whom Melanchthon had sympathized. Of "concord," however, the re21 To Gualter, 26 May 1579 (Ep 81). Cf. P. Chaix, A. Dufour, G. Moeckli, Les Livres imprimes a Geneve de 1550 a 1600 (Geneva, 1966), p. 92.

278

DE

PROFUND1S

suiting formula produced very little among German Protestants. Among Hotman's friends, for example, William and George of Hesse and the Count Palatine Johann Casimir all refused their signatures. The Council of Basel also forbade all students and churches to sign the Concorden-Buch, though without complete success; and Hotman suspected that Sulzer, among others, was not sufficiently aware of the menace of utraquism (that Bohemian practice of taking communion in both kinds). But despite opposition, the Book of Concord was published in 1580. It appeared in three languages, William of Hesse sarcastically remarked to Hotman, so that outsiders would not miss the joke.22 Hotman followed the controversy with some interest. Characteristically, he imputed moral corruption as well as theological error to his enemies. "I think you have heard about the incredible drunkenness of the utraquarian pope, J. Andreae," he remarked to Gualter. "In one night he and two other stupid fellows consumed 36 glasses of wine."23 Aside from such conviviality, the major result of the formula was to sever ties with the Calvinists once and for all. And, along with the mounting "utraquism" in Germany, it prevented Hotman from accepting new offers to teach at Heidelberg or Marburg. As for his academic career, Hotman was making no progress at all. During his six years at Basel he published only two legal works. His teaching, which consisted of private lessons given a couple of hours a day in his own house, was poorly paid, irregular, and generally distasteful. The moral corruption and no doubt the religious divisions of Basel were reflected also in the behavior of students, who lived not in dormitories but in private quarters, who carried swords 22

To Gualter, 12 July, 25 Dec. 1580; 26 Jan. 1581; to Stuckius, 4 Sept. 1580; from William of Hesse, 28 Dec. 1580, and other letters concerning the Formula concordiae (Ep 90, 99, 102, 155, 100, 84-88). Cf. Peter Ochs, Geschichte der Stadt und Landschaft Basel, VI (Basel, 1796), 274. 23 T o Gualter, 25 July 1580 (Ep. 93).

279

DE

PROFUNDIS

(and used them), and who even, some of them, were permitted to keep horses in the city.24 There were chronic complaints in particular about the so-called "night-swarmers," who gathered in the Kirchhof of St. Peter or on the Rhine bridge to make noise or to fight, usually with the shopkeepers. In 1579, for instance, four students were arrested by the police the morning after such a scuffle with the citizenry. In 1581 an ordinance was passed against a variety of minor offenses, including racing and ball-playing, but the incidence of dueling and other violence suggests that such controls were not very effective. Hotman's major troubles, however, continued to center on his personal life. In April 1579 he wrote to Sir Amias Paulet to ask about the state of his eldest son Jean's health, spiritual as well as physical. He had tried to bring up all of his sons in piety, he declared, but he had carried this on against enormous odds. "For thirty years," he continued, "I have either been separated from my country, family, and friends, or else I have suffered in my fatherland even greater misfortunes than exile."25 A week later he complained in much the same terms to Justus Lipsius, who was still trying to get him to come to Leiden. Many things made this impossible, Hotman concluded, more bleakly than usual, "especially considering my years, which have brought me close to death." His health was poor, and he did not think he could survive a change of climate and diet. Meanwhile, the news from France continued to be distressing. The struggle in Dauphine would threaten Swiss Protestants for years to come, Hotman was sure, but there were larger and more insidious dangers to worry about. In July the Duke of Alencon (now of Anjou as well), who had high hopes of receiving the hand of Queen Elizabeth, made his first expedition into the Netherlands. Although Henry 24

In general, Edgar Bonjour, Die Universitdt Basel (Basel, i960), pp. i33ff. 25 To Paulet, 1 Apr., and to Lipsius, 8 May 1579 (Ep 78, 80).

280

DE

PROFUNDIS

HI disclaimed any part of this plan, Hotman would not believe it and as usual thought he detected a conspiracy. Be­ hind all the hypocrisy there was a cabal at the court, he believed, and "collusions among France, Spain, the Pope, and Alencon." In the "Order of the Holy Spirit," estab­ lished by the King in December, Hotman found another weapon aimed at true religion. As always he attributed much of the mischief to Catherine de M6dicis and her Italianate influence. Against this, and against the growing tax burden, even some papists were beginning to protest, he was happy to learn. But there was no way of avoiding an­ other open conflict. Henry III was almost all there was left of a middle party. "The King sits home . . . ," Hotman told George of Hesse in March 1580, "declaring that he wants nothing except peace and quiet, but nobody believes him."26 BASEL, M A Y

1580

Qvil war again, the seventh, and once again Hotman felt the tug of public life. In April the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde were already sending out letters and defen­ sive propaganda, and Hotman wanted to return to their service. He communicated his wishes to a friend and fellow jurist, Doctor Peter Beutterich, councilor of Count Palatine Johann Casimir, who had succeeded his late father, Fred­ erick III, the Elector Palatine, as political leader of the Ger­ man Calvinists and opponent of the Formula of Concord.27 In March, Beutterich had come to Switzerland to convey Johann Casimir's affection for the Swiss churches, especially 26 To Gualter, 25 Nov. 1578 and 18 Jan. 1579 (Ep 74, 77); to George of Hesse, 14 Mar., 6 Aug. 1579 and j Mar. 1580 (Darmstadt HSA, MS cited in n. 3, above, nos. 10, 12, 19). 27 From Beutterich, 27 Mar. and 28 July (from "Lutreae," i.e., Kaiserslautern, not "Zurczeae," as in Ep, which Dareste makes "Zurzee"), and from Guitry, 3 Aug. 1580 (Ep 87, 94, and Blok, 66). Cf. Bezold, I, 369 (from Rozet, 1 Mar. 1580), and in general Volker Press, Calvinismus und Territorialstaat (Stuttgart, 1970), pp. 342ΓΓ.

281

DE

PROFUNDIS

that of Geneva, and most likely to pay a visit to Basel as well before going on to join his master in Kaiserslautern. Here he met also with Conde and Navarre's representative Jean de Chaumont, Sieur de Guitry, and passed on Hotman's request. "Guitry's answer," Beutterich wrote to Hotman on the 27th of the month, "was that the King of Navarre would undoubtedly offer you the position of councilor and Maitre des Requetes and, if you can stand the notoriety, of ambassador to the Swiss." Once again, it seems, Hotman was involving himself in questionable, if not treasonable, Franco-Germanic collaboration on behalf of his cause. For many years he had been in contact with the court of the Elector Palatine, which was a veritable nest of Calvinists. Among these were a number of Hotman's friends, including Beutterich, the Baron von Dohna, Peter Dathenus, Daniel Tossanus, Justus Reuber, the Palatine chancellor Christoph Ehem, and an old colleague from Strasbourg, Jerome Zanchi. Like Hotman, many of these men were exiles, many graduates of Bourges or Geneva, and all of them devoted to the cause of international Protestantism. The patron of this group had been Frederick III, to whom Hotman had dedicated his FrancoGallia. When Frederick died in 1576, the Palatinate was restored to Lutheranism by his son Louis, but the Calvinists found a protector in the Elector's second son, Johann Casimir. Three years later Johann Casimir would have Reuber steal his brother's will, which provided for the preservation of Lutheranism. Then, as effective governor of the Palatinate (and guardian of the young Frederick IV), he would restore Calvinism and launch into a campaign against the idolatrous and (as it was charged) beer-drinking Lutherans, especially those at the University of Heidelberg. Hotman, of course, followed his career with much interest and approval. At this particular time, May 1580, the Prince of Conde had come to the Palatinate to gain the support of Johann Casimir, if possible in the form of troops. This proved un282

DE

PROFUNDIS

successful, but he continued his efforts and the next month decided once again to enlist the services of Hotman. 28 His assignment was to defend Conde against certain "calumnies" being spread by the French ambassador in Soleure, and Hotman obliged with an account of the new treachery and the massacres of the war, so reminiscent of the bloodbath of eight years before. Indeed, Hotman told Gualter in July, if La Rochelle were taken, a similar general massacre might well be repeated. As it was, the siege of La Fere (the Huguenot stronghold in Picardy) was horrible and made worse by starvation and plague. Meanwhile, the French government was still up to its old "Italian tricks." A financial officer known to Hotman as "Hans von Lanta" (probably the "Hans Frederick von Wormes" referred to by the English ambassador in Paris) was sent to Switzerland to collect money, and he spent several months in Basel during the spring and summer trying to recruit troops. 28 The council forbade citizens of Basel to take part in this war, but it could not actually prevent these financial operations. The Huguenots, of course, were trying the same sort of tricks, and even more surreptitiously. Such, in one way or another, was the purpose of Conde's various trips during this year. In June he went to England, where, as he told Hotman, he was well received by Queen Elizabeth. Probably he came with an agent of Johann Casimir to ask for money to raise German mercenaries (so at least the Spanish ambassador thought), though Hotman did not admit this in his letters. He was certainly privy to Conde's schemes, but as he told Gualter, "there are many secrets which I cannot 28

To Abraham Musculus, 21 June, and to Gualter, 12 July and 21 June 1580 (Zurich ZB, S. 138, f. 1441·; Ep 90-91, 89). 29 To Paulet, 17 July 1580 (Ep 92), and Cobham to Walsingham, 9 Aug. 1580 (CSP, For., Eliz., 1579-80, 395); also to Musculus, 25 July 1580 (Basel UB, G.I.68, f. 112').

283

DE

PROFUND1S

commit to writing."80 The next month Conde went into Germany, where he met with Johann Casimir, and then to the Netherlands, where there was talk of his becoming Alencon's lieutenant. At this time Hotman was tempted once again to take a more active part in affairs. In August a request came from Conde, seconded by Johann Casimir, for him to attend the Diet of Nurnberg. He considered the assignment, but in the end he turned it down. "My 55 years," he confessed to Gualter, "deters me from undertaking any more such perigrinations." His depression was increased by the news he received the month before that his second son Theages, who had been given military training while staying in the household of the Chatillons, had died in the service of the Huguenot forces in Languedoc during the summer. Hotman's efforts would have been wasted anyway. Nothing came of the Diet, and there was small hope of continuing the war. Conde, failing to get substantial help either from Elizabeth or from Johann Casimir, agreed to surrender La Fere the next month, and in November the peace was signed. To many contemporaries this had been the "lovers' war" (referring to a bit of court scandal about the infidelity of Henry of Navarre's wife, passed on by the King); to Hotman, however, it was a "holy war" carried on against unheard-of cruelty and tyranny—a tyranny which, moreover, had become world-wide. It was no coincidence, Hotman believed, that the massacre of the French troops by the Spanish (he blamed the Duke of Alba in particular) in June was followed a few weeks later by the massacre of Huguenots in Paris; it was the result of simple collusion between the French and Spanish governments. This distorted judgment reflects not only Hotman's growing conspiratorial fears and his horror of the "sodomites" at the French court, but also his suspicions of absolute authority in general. "What Plau30

284

To Gualter, 7 Aug. 1580 (Ep 95).

DE PROFUNDIS tus said about the gods," he quoted in an unusually reflective mood, "may be said also about princes: kings really do play ball with the lives of men."31 BASEL, FRIDAY EVENING, 30 SEPTEMBER 1580

A glimpse, for once, into Hotman's private life. He and Dr. Platter, a friend in the faculty of medicine, were dining with a distinguished visitor from Bordeaux, Michel de Montaigne.32 For Hotman it must have been quite a change of pace, since Montaigne had come purely as a tourist. He was on his way to Italy, seeing all the sights and drinking all the wine he could find, and generally indulging his love for travel. On the whole he did not like being at the mercy of innkeepers, however, and so he was grateful for the hospitality which he received in Basel from the city government and from the various men of learning, including Hotman, who had greeted him upon his arrival the day before. Montaigne enjoyed his brief stay, or so at least he told Hotman in a letter of thanks written a month later. In his journal he mentioned in particular the local wine (which he found very pleasant), the church of St. Peters (which he also liked), and the curious town clock that always ran an hour slow in honor of an old military triumph. The dinner conversation, however, carried on in German as well as French, seemed a bit strange to him. Theology seemed to be the main topic, and it was not one of his favorites. "M. de Montaigne judged that they were not in agreement over their religion," his secretary recorded, "some calling themselves Zwinglians, others Calvinists, others [Lutherans]; and indeed he was informed that many still fostered the Roman religion in their hearts." Then the talk turned— 31 To Gualter, 4 Jan. 1581; to George of Hesse, 12 and 19 Feb. 1580; to Paulet, 17 July 1580 (Ep 101; Darmstadt HSA, MS, Nos. :7, 18; Ep 92). 32 Montaigne, Journal de voyage en Italie, ed. M. Rat (Paris, 1955), pp. 15, 61 (29 Sept. and 27 Oct. 1580).

285

ΌΕ

PROFUND1S

again, as one may suppose, with Hotman's help—to local morals. "Several people complained to M. de Montaigne," the anonymous secretary continued, "about the dissolute­ ness of the women and the drunkenness of the inhabitants." It would be fascinating to know what else M. de Mon­ taigne and Dr. Hotman found to talk about. Both were men of the world, profoundly affected by the civil wars, with legal and diplomatic experience and very similar ideas about the character of society (about the insidious effects of civil law, for example, the relativity of human custom, and the tragic character of human life). Yet the contrasts were perhaps even greater and may have prevented much communication. Montaigne was a man of wealth, introspec­ tive, tolerant, and contemptuous of religious disputes, if not religious enthusiasm; Hotman was poor, at least by his own standards, suspicious, filled with persecution feelings, and wholly inflexible in religious matters. Montaigne was on vacation and looking forward to enjoying Italian culture; Hotman was trapped in Basel and looked upon Italy as the seminary of all iniquity. Montaigne was an ironic man, fas­ cinated with the curious customs and diversity of men; Hotman, a bitter man, obsessed with their weakness and the growing popery and immorality of his little world. The growing corruption of the world may well have been symbolized for Hotman by a literary phenomenon that oc­ curred later that year—a literary phenomenon that would have disgusted Montaigne as well. This was the publication by the Basel printer Peter Perna of the first Latin transla­ tion of Machiavelli's Prince. Even in Italy, Hotman wrote Gualter on Christmas Day, the work of this "master of im­ piety and profligacy" was banned because of its blasphe­ mies. 38 H e attempted to have it suppressed, but his friends Amerbach and Zwinger as well as the Antistes Sulzer said that this was the business of the magistrate. This was not the response Calvin would have given. If this was a sign of what the world was coming to, Hotman truly had nowhere to turn. 33

286

To Gualter, 27 Sept. and 25 Dec. 1580 (Ep 97, 99).

DE BASEL, 22

PROFUND1S

D E C E M B E R 158 Ι

Hotman was still following the political situation, though now he was obviously on the periphery of events. No one, from what he could learn, seemed to be minding his own business. "Navarre is off hunting, if not worse," he told Gualter. "Conde is busy with the war in the Netherlands and has high hopes for Alencon, who, it is said, married the Queen of England on 22 November past and was pro­ claimed King of England the next day. This Beza himself has written to confirm."34 Hotman did not share these hopes and was not unhappy later to learn that he had been mis­ informed. In general he had to depend on rumors from France and Germany for his information, and these were often confusing. For Hotman the major problem continued to be the se­ curity of the Swiss states. There was a continuous fear of an attack by Spain and Savoy upon Geneva and perhaps Bern, too. The Duke of Savoy was still conspiring against them, Hotman told Rhedinger, and he assumed that the French government was an accomplice as well.35 In January Swiss ambassadors were sent to Paris to request payment for mil­ itary services rendered, and they implied that they might have to break off the French agreement and align them­ selves with the Spanish. In July Hotman's old friend Henri Estienne paid a visit and told of the troops that had been assembling in the vicinity of Geneva. His own lands and possessions had been ravaged by Italian mercenaries. The situation was serious enough to disturb several German princes, including Hotman's old patron William of Hesse and Johann Casimir. It was the latter who was the center of attention during the next year, at least for French and German Protestants. 34

E p 106.

35

To Rhedinger, 16 July 1582 (Paris BSG, 1458, ff. 434^-35^)-, cf. to Tossanus, same date (Ep i n ) . In keeping with Hotman's own focus, I have not transformed the dating of Hotman's or other Protestant letters to Gregorian style but have them stylo nostro (as Mornay put it), i.e., ten days behind.

287

DE

PROFUNDIS

In the spring, in close cooperation with Conde, he kept busy recruiting troops for the Calvinist cause in Germany. In June he spent two days in Basel. "I immediately put myself at his service," wrote Hotman, "as he requested."38 Johann Casimir offered his assistance in Basel's interminable struggle with its bishop and the Duke of Savoy. For the most part, however, Casimir's attention was taken up with a bigger game—the so-called "Cologne war," waged against the Catholics on behalf of Beghard Truchsess, Elector and Archbishop of Cologne, who had announced his conversion to Protestantism in 1582. In this enterprise he was supported by Conde, Navarre, and some of the Swiss. In June 1583 he sent his councilor Peter Beutterich, who three years before had helped Hotman rejoin Navarre's service, on another recruiting mission. From Kaiserslautern he went to Strasbourg and then proceeded further south. "I can indeed raise support among the Swiss, but it is difficult to get a guarantee," he reported to his master in the characteristic bilingual jargon of German Calvinists ("Quant aux Suisses, j'en pourrois bien lever; es ist aber sehr schwer der versicherung haben").37 "I am getting on my horse and heading directly for Basel on the Rhine beyond Breisach" ("par dela le Rhin neben Breisach hin"). He would stop there only a short time, he continued, just long enough to recruit soldiers. "Things have gone too far. The die is cast." Hotman met and conferred with Beutterich and tried thereafter to follow Johann Casimir's fortunes. He remarked on his admirable behavior in expelling "the Cardinal pests" (the papal legates sent from Rome) in the spring and on the victory of the Calvinist forces in the summer. But the campaign "against the antichrist" became increasingly obscure and, from Hotman's point of view, irrelevant. "Where is Casimir and what is he doing?" asked Hotman in October. "We have no idea."38 What he was doing was pre38 To Gualter, 18 June 1582 (Ep 109); Bezold, I, 45 (Johann Pincus to Joachim Camerarius, 20 June 1582). 37 Beutterich to Johann Casimir, 28 June 1583 (Bezold, II, 131-33). 38 Hotman to Stuckius, 4 Oct., 19 Apr. and 28 June 1583 (Ep 131,

118, 127).

288

DE

PROFUND1S

paring for the "evangelical war" of the following year, but he was also alienating his German friends, including William of Hesse, with his recklessness. The falling out between his French and German troops further discredited his cause. Hotman was especially disturbed by the brutality of the Germans and in March registered a complaint with his friend Tossanus, a Calvinist professor at the University of Heidelberg. Hotman asked him to pass on to Johann Casimir the declaration of the Swiss cantons, that they would not help the French King against any but foreign enemies. "If your centaurs, the Reiters . . . , would tell the King the same thing," he added, "we would be much obliged, though it seems to me that they are truly centaurs and care no more for religion than do their horses."39 MONTBELIARD, 28 FEBRUARY

1583

Bad as it was, the political situation was much overshadowed by Hotman's domestic troubles. On this particular day he watched his wife die of the plague, which had returned to Basel the previous summer.40 Months before, Hotman had sent his family to the relative safety of this Protestant town, where he was well known and indeed later would receive the right of citizenship. He had stayed behind in Basel with a servant but was soon forced to follow his family when his wife fell sick. At the same time, two of his daughters, Marie and Theodorula, were sent to a refuge in a nearby village, while a third, Anne, was herself taken ill with pleurisy. As his wife grew sicker, then, Hotman was left to his own resources. He carried on a frantic, almost 39

T o Tossanus, 29 Mar. 1584 (Ep 134). To Iselin, 23 Apr. 1583 (Basel UB, G.I.13, f. 271). Letters to Amerbach, 19 Dec. 1582, 18 Jan., 4 and 23 Feb. 1583; to Zwinger, 19, 30 Dec. 1582, and many undated of early 1583 (Basel UB, GJI.19, ff. 248', 199% 201'; Fr. Gr.II.23, ff. 229r, 232% and 228^401); also to Gualter and Stuckius, 12 Aug. 1582 (Zurich ZB, F. 81, f. 22'; Ep 114). A. Tuetey, Etude sur le droit municipal . . . d Montbeliard (Montb61iard, 1864), p. 151: "1584—7 May. Reception de monsieur Francois Hotman, jurisconsulte tres-excellent, natif de Paris, seigneur de Villiers." 40

289

DE

PROFUNDIS

day-by-day correspondence with his medical friends in Zurich, Zwinger and Arrago, but their prescriptions were useless. On 23 February he reported that she was "almost a cadaver." Day and night he remained at her bedside until the end. A few months later he received a blow almost as hard to take and much harder to understand. His son Daniel, who had so embarrassed him with William of Hesse a few years before, had moved to Geneva and had begun to backslide, causing his father no end of chagrin. "I have done all I can," wrote Hotman; "I have sent him money and books."41 More, he had provided him with an example of constancy and fortitude. "Although abandoned by my whole family, who are entirely devoted to popery and to tyranny," he con­ tinued, "I have preserved myself, thanks to the grace of God and to my work." In June he pleaded with Daniel to return to his senses. "Your pious and strong-hearted mother died in Montbeliard on the last day of February. If you want to know what she thought of you, you can find out from your brother Pierre and from your sisters." His friend Zwinger added a note, begging Daniel not to distress his father. But Daniel did not mend his ways. From Geneva he went to Heidelberg and, apparently through the influence of one of his uncles, returned to the faith of his grandfather despite his father's prayers. Never had exile weighed so heavily upon Hotman. Feel­ ing old, unwanted, and isolated, his family and friends scat­ tered all over Europe, he did not know what to do, and he began to compare his plight literally with that of Job: "Blessed is he whom Jehova chastises," he repeated, "for his wounds shall be healed."42 But Hotman lacked the patience 41

To Daniel Hotman, 2 June 1583 (Ep 123, 124); to Iselin, 1 May, Γ r 28 Aug. 1581 (Basel UB, G.I.13, ff. ιο , i8 ). 42 "Beatus quern Jehova castigat, nam idem qui vulnerat, medenir," in Durant's Liber amicorum, published in BSHPF, XII (1863), 228, and again in letter to Amerbach, 19 Dec. 1582 (see n. 40 above); also to Lobbetius, 10 June 1583 (Ep 125); cf. to Grynaeus, 1 June 1586 (Basel UB, G.II.6, f. 4381).

290

DE

PROFUND1S

to put up with his fate passively. As usual he tried to solve his problems by moving. His friends in Basel disapproved, but he pleaded that he had to see to it that his daughters were properly married, and so he was determined to return to Geneva. Or was there a more urgent reason? Hotman was still in close touch with Beza—he had recently received a visit from him and Chandieu in fact—and knew that there was still a place for him to teach at the academy. More significant, perhaps, Hotman may have wanted to be in closer contact with his party organization. For it was just a month before Hotman's return to Geneva (which was late September 1584) that he was given the chance once again to see some action in the service of his old cause.

291

XII.

A BRUTISH T H U N D E R B O L T

GENEVA-BASEL,

1584-1590

"I fight for the triumph of French truth." "The Pope is looking for an assassin . . . to kill me for 2,000 crowns." Hotman, 1585, 1586

BASEL, 24 AUGUST

1584

ANOTHER St. Bartholomew's Day, at least as Protestants reckoned. Hotman had just passed his sixtieth birthday and now was busy making preparations for his return to Geneva. On this particular day, from his headquarters in Montauban, King Henry of Navarre sat down to write a letter urging him to rejoin the battle. "Monsieur Hotman," he began, "our age is so perverse and licentious that we can see nothing but the most flagrant intrigues and plots. It is time to find a remedy for this. Your books have been so warmly received throughout Christendom, their reputation is so high, and your own public-spiritedness is so universally known, that I beg you to take up the matter of succession. This large and complex question, so vital for posterity, needs to be clarified, and no one can do this better than you. W o r k at it with diligence and attention, therefore, and be assured that I will reward so useful a service. God keep you in His holy care. . . . Your good and constant friend, Henry." 1 Henry's great matter had become a public dilemma just over two months before as a result of the death of the King's sole surviving brother, the Duke of Anjou. This final blow to Catherine de Medici's dynastic hopes left him, the King of Navarre, as the most arguably legitimate heir to the l

Blok, 67. (Blok's explanatory notes are full of errors and must be used with caution.)

292

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT French throne. The turnabout was deeply disturbing to everyone except Henry III, though he would be the one to suffer most by it. On the one hand, Catholics were shocked by the prospect of a heretic king and the reaction of "tacit Huguenots," while on the other, Protestants feared another Romanist backlash and further foreign intervention. As it turned out both sides were right—not surprisingly since both were doing as much as possible to insure a renewed conflict—whence the origins of the last and most destruc­ tive phase of the civil wars. The lines had already been drawn. For over two years Henry of Navarre had been in close touch with Protestant leaders throughout Europe, leading his enemies to suspect, in fact, that he was assembling a general anti-Catholic league. What truth there was in this charge was inflated not only by misrepresentation but even by forgery. In the sum­ mer of 1583 Jacques de Segur, Sieur de Pardaillan, was sent on a mission to Germany to obtain support from friendly Lutheran princes; and a Catholic attack was published against this "fire bug" who was presumably trying to reignite the wars of religion.2 Then in December of 1584 there was circulated a story about a vast conspiratorial assembly of Protestants held at Mildeburg in Zeeland. The pamphlet that broadcast this rumor was not even a competent for­ gery: Pardaillan, supposedly in attendance as Navarre's representative, was elsewhere; nor could William of Orange and the Elector Palatine have been present, since both had been dead for several months. But this did not prevent the story from being believed and repeated over the next few years. The truth is that the Catholic party was doing most of the serious conspiring. At the time the fictitious conference was 2 Le Boutfeu des Calvinistes (Frankfurt, 1584; BN, Lb.84 222); ML, Ι, 523ΓΓ; to Hotman from William of Hesse, 14, Jan. 1584 (Ep 132). Cf. Discours sur la comparaison et ellection des deux partis (Montauban, 1586; BN, Lb." 320); Protestation des liguez faicte en Vassemblee de Mildebourg, au moys de Decembre dernier passee (n.p., 1585; LN 1119); Histoire de la ligue, I, 65.

293

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

supposed to be taking place, the Duke of Guise was in fact holding a secret meeting of Catholics at the castle of Joinville. The "most holy, most Christian, and most Catholic League" that emerged from this was indeed an international plot, consisting as it did of a union of the Guise party with Spain and Savoy and being subsidized by Spanish money; and it was considerably more menacing than its predecessor of eight years before. It was just the sort of imposing structure, in fact, that Hotman had always wanted for his own party. Hotman himself, noticing the growing sympathy of French Catholics for Spain and for the Jesuits, was quite aware of the turn of events; and while he could not follow directly the concealed process of the League's reestablishment, he was certainly not surprised when he did hear of it.3 As always he suspected the worst. About one thing he was mistaken, however, and that was the complicity of Henry III. The King was no party to the treaty of Joinville, and in fact both before and afterwards he issued edicts prohibiting the formation of private associations. But he was losing what little power and maneuverability he had left. This became embarrassingly obvious when, three days after the second of these edicts (28 March 1585), the League came out into the open. Over the King's objections the Cardinal of Bourbon, that "red ass" who also happened to be Henry of Navarre's paternal uncle, was declared to be the legitimate heir of Henry III. A correlative aim of this "declaration of Peronne" was the final solution of the Protestant problem—that is, as Protestants had always assumed anyway, extermination.4 Such was the nature of Henry of Navarre's, and so of Hotman's, opposition. 8

Hotman to Amerbach (?) 1583 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 202'). La Ligue tres sainte, tres chrestienne, et tres catholique (n.p., 1585; Ars. 8°H. 127864); cf. Joseph de Croze, Les Guises, les Valois et Philip II (Paris, 1866), II, 346 4 T o Tossanus, 13 June 1585 (Ep 149). Declaration des causes qui ont meu monseigneur le cardinal de Bourbon . . . (n.p., 1585), in ML, I, 61-69; AC, XI; cf. ML, I, 56.

294

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

By this time Hotman had already launched into his part of the fight. His job was to state the case for Henry's candidacy as strongly as possible. In November 1584, having accepted the commission, he wrote to ask for more precise instructions about the line of argument. The reply came from Philippe du Plessis Mornay, Navarre's chief advisor and supposed author of the Defense of Liberty against Tyrants, a book that had provoked almost as much scandal as the Franco-Gallia.5 Mornay suggested that while care should be taken not to offend Henry III, the Guises' case should be undermined and overthrown with every available legal resource, ancient and modern, foreign and domestic. A little later Hotman conferred with another of Navarre's advisors, Paul Chouart, Sieur de Buznaval, who had come to Basel on several errands. Buznaval admired Hotman's previous work but had to inform him that the opposition was making use of certain parts of it, notably the apparent arguments on behalf of elective monarchy in the Franco-Gallia and one of his quaestiones favoring the succession of the uncle to that of a nephew in private law. With the aid of such advice Hotman went to work. At the end of the year he submitted a draft to Mornay, and in April he presented to Henry himself the final version of his Disputation on the Controversy over Royal Succession between an Uncle and his Late Brother's Son. The next month Hotman requested permission to have it printed. The Council of Geneva was still wary of publications offensive to the French government, but Hotman argued that the King of Navarre would be upset if they did not allow it, and so they agreed to license the book with the stipulation that Hotman publish it anonymously.6 So for Hotman the pen war resumed. 5

From Mornay, 3 Dec, 30 Dec. 1584, 23 Jan., 26 Apr. 1585 (Blok, 69-72); to Amerbach, 16 Dec. 1584 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 206')· Once again doubt has been cast upon Mornay's authorship and a new candidate has been suggested, Johann Junius de Jonge: see Derk Visser, "Junius: the Author of the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos?" Tijdschrift voor Gescbiedenis, LXXXIV (1971), 510-25. 6 Geneva AE, RC, ff. 6f, 69" ( n , 17 May 1585); also f. 79 (and 295

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

Hotman's major task was to counter the Guise argument placing the Cardinal of Bourbon "closer" to the common ancestor Louis IX and so to the Valois line than his nephew Henry of Navarre. The subject in general was far from new —he had written about it in his first book and several other times during the past forty years—but he was faced with an unusually difficult choice of strategy. Given his previously published opinion, he could hardly argue the case in terms of private law; still less could he resort to the "Salic law," since he had denied its public force in his FrancoGallia. This was the view taken also by Navarre's chancellor Arnaud du Ferrier, who wrote to offer his advice by virtue not only of his position but also of "the fine friendship between your later father and me."7 Whether or not Hotman was charmed by this introduction, he certainly tended to agree with Du Ferrier's view that royal succession had to do not with private or feudal law but only with the constitutional principle of primogeniture in the senior line of a dynasty. Mornay, though claiming to be in accord with Du Ferrier, put the matter a bit differently. He thought that Hotman ought to base his case not on civil law or general rules of jurisprudence (a justa re) but rather on the native law of France, which of course included feudal custom. As usual Hotman went his own way, and his solution did not quite fit either of these prescriptions. He chose to carry on his argument above the level of particular precedents, customs, or civil laws. Instead he rested his case upon a transcendent theory of royal succession in terms of natural right—a "royal birth-right" (suitas regia) he called it—inhering in a particular person. Nothing devised by man, in his view, could alter this concatenation of inheritance rights. It mattered not at all, for example, that Henry of NaJune), permission to print Quaestiones illustres, of which No. 3 (p. 27) is the one referred to here. 7 From Du Ferrier, 7 May; Henry of Navarre, 10 June; Mornay, 10 June 1585 (Blok, 73-75).

296

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

varre was far removed (by twenty-one degrees) from the Valois in terms of present blood relationship; historically and genealogically, in fact, the Bourbons were even closer (by three degrees) to Saint Louis than was Henry III. The determining factor was the suites regia, and this irrevoca­ bly deprived the Cardinal of Bourbon of the shadow of a claim.8 The best authority Hotman could find for this prin­ ciple was the work of Jean de Terre Rouge "against the rebels" (that is, against the claims of Burgundy), which represented primogeniture in the senior line as a general feature of French custom overriding particular laws, and he published this fifteenth-century jurist's tract along with his own disputation. At first, possibly with a rival author's critical eye, Mornay was worried about the excessively abstract character of Hotman's plea and told him so when he saw the printed book in July. Yet ambitious as it was, Hotman's argument was not really intended to be universal in application. Per­ haps he had passed too lightly over the historical side of the question (and in fact would remedy this in the next edi­ tion), but his aim was to raise the rule of succession, which operated through channels of "natural" blood inheritance, to the level of what would soon be called "fundamental laws"—constitutional principle that would transcend both the arbitrary will of particular rulers and the cavils of par­ tisan lawyers. In any case Mornay did not push the point very far, since Henry of Navarre himself seemed satisfied. On 14 July, three days after Mornay's complaint, the King wrote that everyone was speaking well of the book; and a month later (again on the anniversary of St. Bartholomew) Mornay offered Hotman his personal congratulations. "I am much content and believe that it will satisfy all men of good judgment. We have recently lost our good chancellor Du s De Controversia successionis, p. 72; cf. Franco-Gallia, Ch. VII (p. 246 β); also R. E. Giesey, The Juristic Basic of Dynastic Right to the French Throne {American Philosophical Society, Transactions, LI 5 , Philadelphia, 1961), pp. 30-37.

297

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

Ferrier," he added, "and I think he would feel the same way."9 So pleased was the King of Navarre with Hotman's services that at the end of the year he rewarded him officially by admitting him into his privy council. In January 1586 Jacques du Pin, coming to Geneva on a mission from Navarre, transmitted to Hotman his new title of councilor. Henry also promised Hotman assistance in a certain matter "that touches you closely"—perhaps the recovery of his property—but apparently he had no success.10 But Hotman's labors were far from being over, and he soon found himself back at his old work as reporter, liaison, and moneyraiser for the Bourbon-Huguenot cause. As so often before, his correspondence became an important vehicle for generating support, for his contacts were truly European-wide and interdisciplinary. He wrote regularly to jurists, theologians, doctors, courtiers, and especially to academic persons, ex-students as well as old colleagues; he gave and received various letters of introduction and recommendation; he continued his more or less official news service for the benefit of various German friends; and in the course of this he was able in many ways to promote the purposes of his party. As usual, however, propaganda was his major preoccupation, and his commission to serve as one of Henry of Navarre's spokesmen continued for the rest of his life. Several times over the next few years Hotman urged his new constitutional ideas upon the public—not only in the second edition of his disputation but also in the fourth, much-revised edition of the Franco-Gallia, in a controversial reply to a Guisard attack by his old critic Maffeo Zampini, and in more neutral work called Laws of Royal Succession. Partly to counteract its misrepresentation by Leaguers, Hotman altered the 1586 edition of his Franco9

From Henry, 14 24 Aug. 1585 (Blok, 10 From Henry, 4 1585; from Du Pins, 298

July, 19 Aug.; from Mornay, 10 June, 11 July, 75-79). Dec. 1585, 19 Jan. 1586; from Mornay, 1 Dec. 19 Jan. 1586 (Blok, 81-84).

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

Gallia by deemphasizing the fact of the originally electoral basis of monarchy and the Estates and by adding a final chapter demonstrating that "the King of France does not have unlimited power in his dominion but is circumscribed by settled and specific law." Here it was that he listed a number of fundamental laws (leges regiae), including those which determined succession, and repeated essentially what he had said in his disputation for Navarre. "As the world without the sun," he declared, "so a government without laws and an established constitution cannot survive."11 These views, inspired by Navarre's cause, were provoked at least in part by such absolutist statements as Jean Bodin's Republic, but of course their roots go back at least to the beginnings of the civil wars. The last of these books was already in press when Hotman came across a copy of the Guises' major counterattack, Zampini's Treatise on the Law of Succession, which rejected the idea of suitas in favor of simple genealogical proximity. Within a few weeks Hotman published his reply, which was the last formulation of his constitutional position. In this book he reverted to the heavy-handed satirical style of his battle with Masson a decade before, this time perhaps more effectively, since Zampini, one of the fuorusciti in Catherine de Medicis' service, was really an "Italo-Gaul." It was not he but Zampini, Hotman argued, who treated succession as if it were a "universal category," and who created further distortions with his sophistical Aristotelian logic. "The one closest at death succeeds," went Zampini's syllogism; "the Cardinal of Bourbon is closest; therefore the Cardinal of Bourbon succeeds." Hotman answered this fool, as he had answered Masson, according to his folly: "the lex regia is the law of succession in France," he taunted; "the lex discussed by Zampini is not the law of succession in France; therefore the lex discussed by Zampini is not the lex regia." His real point, of course, was that Zampini knew nothing 11

De lure successionis regiae, p. 3; cf. Franco-Gallia, Ch. XXV.

299

A BRUTISH T H U N D E R B O L T

about French law, and the whole purpose of his tirade was to expose this ignorance. Now, as always, Hotman was a declared partisan: "I fight," he wrote, "for the triumph of French truth" (veritas Francica).12 GENEVA, 3 MAY

1585

The fulcrum, if not the center of power, continued to be Henry III, and Hotman had no faith at all in him. "Most of our people are confused about the King's intentions," he told a friend in Strasbourg. "Many believe that he is conspiring against us, that he is building up an army, that he will designate a Catholic heir, and that he will besiege Geneva. But Christ will confound all the enemies of the Gospel."13 Hotman may have judged the King's motives unfairly, but his estimate of the situation was not far off. Henry III was indeed falling under the influence of the Catholic party, and he was indeed trying to levy troops in Switzerland, especially from Basel. That his purpose was to maintain a free hand rather than to increase the League's strength was beside the point; Henry of Navarre was bound to oppose this in any case, and Hotman cooperated by writing Amerbach two months later to protest to the Council of Basel. Any troops, he was sure, would only fall into the hands of the popish enemy. The Catholic League was making its presence known in many ways. In Paris a special branch was being organized that formed the basis for the future Council of Sixteen. At least two of Hotman's relatives were involved with this Parisian league, though he himself (understandably) never referred to them directly in his correspondence. One was Charles Hotman, probably a cousin and not his brother 12

Ad Tractatum Matthaei Zampmi, p. 8; cf. Zampini, De la Succession du droict et prerogative du . . . Cardinal du Bourbon (Lyon, 1589)· 13

To Amerbach, 6 July, and to Lobbetius, 3 May 1585 (Basel UB,

GJI.19, f. 211'; E p 139).

300

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

(also a Catholic), who under the name of "La Roche Blond" held meetings of the Parisian Leaguers at his house. He became one of the leading organizers and financial officers, who at one point had a treasury of 300,000 crowns for operations of the League.14 The other was his brother Antoine, also an advocate in the Parlement, to whom Hotman had once dedicated a book. Antoine's contributions were strictly intellectual. He wrote two pleas on behalf of the Cardinal of Bourbon that, representing him as "closest to the King in blood," amounted to a refutation of Francois' disputation, though it was nominally aimed at a work by one of Henry of Navarre's Politique champions, Pierre du Belloy. Antoine remained in the Cardinal's employ after 1589 when he was calling himself "Charles X."15 It is possible that another of Hotman's brothers, Philippe, entered the discussion with a defense of the Salic law as well as the Cardinal's case, an apology that was answered by Du Belloy. In Switzerland, which was of more immediate interest to Hotman, the League was also enjoying some success, notably in driving an ever-deeper wedge between Catholic and Protestant cantons. This was accomplished under pressure from Geneva's old nemesis the Duke of Savoy and with the complicity of Louis Pfyffer, Colonel of Lucerne, who became veritable "king of the Swiss" with Catholic support. 14

"Le Proces verbal d'un nomme Nicolas Poulain . . ." (2 Jan. 1585-12 May 1588), in L'Estoile, Memoires-journaux, ed. Brunet et al. (Paris, 1888), III, 349; ML, V, 641-42, the editor of which says that this "Charles Hotman" died soon after; however, Hotman's brother of that name survived until 1596 (L'Estoile, Journal . . . de Henri HM.47*)· 15 Advertissement sur les lettres octroyees a monsieur le cardinal de Bourbon (n.p., 1588) and Traicte sur la declaration du roy pour les droits et prerogatives de monseigneur le cardinal de Bourbon (n.p., 1588), p. 5. A later hand attributes the manuscript, "Discours sur la loy salique" (Paris BN, Dupuy, 34, if. 57^62^, to "Ph. Hotman"; in any case this is a version of the target of Du Belloy's Examen du discours publie contre la maison royalle de France . . . sur la loy salique (n.p., 1587). In 1593 Antoine Hotman also wrote on this subject {Opuscules); cf. Franco-Gallia, VIII (p. 268). 301

A BRUTISH T H U N D E R B O L T

The activity of Spanish, Savoyard, and French Catholic agents in Switzerland at this time confirmed Protestant suspicions that the League was a truly universal conspiracy. As the French ambassador to the Swiss Diet wrote in April, just after the news of the "declaration of Peronne" came out, the Catholics thought that they were living in a "year of revolution when Protestants would be exterminated and their religion extinguished."18 Once again Huguenots were put on the defensive, but as usual, before they could take direct action, they had to begin by issuing the public statements of policy. One of the first of these was a counterattack by Hotman's colleague Mornay against "the calumnies and protests of those of the League," whose aim, he charged, was nothing less than "total extinction of those of the religion."17 Among the calumnies rejected was that story of the assembly of Mildeburg ("Magdeburg," as Mornay has it garbled). Later, disguising himself as a "French Catholic gentleman," he continued his assault upon the "Espagnols-Francais" in a pamphlet duel with a Leaguer, probably Louis d'Orleans, also disguised, as a "Catholic Englishman"; and there he reviewed once again the "rebellious" behavior of the Guises, contrasting it with the loyalty of Henry of Navarre. "I cannot accept as French," he remarked, "those who have their hearts in Spain." But it was a losing battle at this point. The next month the King, pushed by his mother and pulled by the League, was finally forced to give up the struggle for neutrality by revoking the edicts of pacification. This so-called "Treaty of Nemours" (18 July 1585) was practically a declaration of war, and Henry of Navarre instantly recognized it as such. "You have joined your enemies to ruin your servants" was his reaction. "I understand," he wrote to Catherine the same le Fleury to Villeroy, 12 Apr. 1585, in Ron, II, 264-65, a work much relied upon for the following. 17 ML, I, 79, 120; the exchange between Mornay and Louis d'Orleans is in Paris BN, Lb." 312-17.

302

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

day, "that this peace was made without and against me."18 Yet that was not the worst of it, for another enemy was preparing the crudest blow of all during this "year of revolution." While Mornay was writing his first rejoinder, Pope Sixtus V, barely two months in office, asked the Inquisition to look into the case of King of Navarre. Over the summer the matter was much debated, but the intimidation of the League proved too great. On 9 September, after hostilities had already resumed in France, the Pope read in consistory his bull excommunicating those two "children of wrath," Navarre and Conde, and twelve days later he made it public. It was as a direct result of this rash denunciation that, within six weeks, Hotman found himself with still another legal assignment. At the beginning of September that "fire bug" Pardaillan wrote to Hotman requesting that he undertake the official response. "The King," he added, "knows of no one in all Christendom who can better accomplish this."19 Hotman must have worked very fast, for in less than two months he reported the job done. "The book contains a protest, together with many refutations, of that horrible execration" (of Sixtus V), he wrote to Abraham Museums. "Navarre and Conde are answering in their own names. Mine can add nothing; you know how tyrannically I am treated." And less than two months after that the book was printed. "I am sending you the Pope's Brutum Fulmen, charging our princes with horrible and nefarious crimes," he wrote Amerbach in March. "I have answered the indignities of these rascals." Copies of this "attack on the tyranny of antichrist" were widely distributed. Hotman immediately sent the book to Johann Casimir, for example, whose chancellor i-zRecueil des lettres missives de Henri IV, ed. Berger de Xivrey (Paris, 1843), II, 87, 89 (to Henry III and to Catherine, 10 July 1585); ML, I, 178, 182, 271. 19 From Pardaillan, 12 Nov. 1585 (Blok, 80); to Musculus, 20 Dec. 1585, to Amerbach, 7 Mar. 1586, and from Reuber, 3 Apr. 1586, Zurich ZB, S. 143, f. ior (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 2i9 r ; Ep 142).

303

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

Justus Reuber bestowed his blessing upon it. Henry of Navarre received his copy in early March. Within two months the book was available in Paris, and the papal Nuncio Ragazzoni, who a year before had ordered the bull itself sent to all French bishops, immediately demanded an audience with the King to protest its distribution and to urge that booksellers be prosecuted for its possession.20 Naturally this was all useless; the work had a sensational impact, even greater than that of the Franco-Gallia. It was printed at Geneva, Leiden, probably Basel, and elsewhere; and Hotman himself counted four separate editions in two years. There were also contemporary translations into French, German, Dutch, and English, the latter made by Christopher Fetherstone, a fellow protege, with Hotman's son Jean, of the Earl of Leicester. The Brutish Thunderbolt, or Rather Feeble Fier-Flash is the way Fetherstone Englished Hotman's title; ignis fatuus is the term he had in mind; "stupid attack" is the approximate force of the Latin Brutum Fulmen. In this book Hotman reverted to the kind of violent invective which he had applied to Masson and indeed used some of the same epithets, including "stupid cuckoo" as well as "antichrist." He rejected the Pope's position on grounds both of "nullity" and of "crime" and went on to charge him with all seven capital crimes—impiety, heresy, tyranny, sacrilege, lese majesty, forgery, and disregard of law.21 Not the Huguenot 20 Girolamo Ragazzoni, Correspondence de sa nonciature 1583-1586, ed. Pierre Blet (Acta Nunciaturae Galliae, II, Rome-Paris, 1962), n. 279 (to Cardinal Rusticucci, 25 May 1586). Hotman to Henry, 3 Mar.; to Zwinger, 16 and 27 Mar.; from Tossanus, 18 Oct. 1586 and to Johan Casimir (?); cf. to Grynaeus, 8 Mar. 1588; (Paris BN, Fr. 3372, f. 137'; Basel UB, Fr.Gr.23, f. 231' and 28, f. 136'; Ep 143; Ep 160; Basel UB, G.II.6, f. 444r), among others. 21 Brutum Fulmen, pp. 10, 50, 63, 72, 87, 107, and esp. pp. i28ff on "crimen falsi" (Fetherston's English translations, pp. 185-86, 199, 204), cf. Franco-Gallia, Ch. XIII; Hotman to Tossanus, 8 May 1587 (Ep 147)·

304

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT leader but the Pope himself was the real "rebel" and betrayer of religion. It is interesting to see Hotman, for a change, defending the dignity not of the "great council" or of the legal profession but of the monarchy itself, although this was largely drowned out by his anti-Romanist swordrattling. Of all the crimes committed by the "purple whore," as Hotman called the papal monarchy because of its imperial pretensions, that of fraud was the worst, and the most notorious instance of this was the Donation of Constantine. Hotman marshaled some 25 arguments and a whole battery of scholarly references to discredit once more this fiction, so laughable if it had not been so malignant. Over half of his arguments were made on rational grounds, pointing to improbabilities, contradictions, and outright absurdities; but throughout Hotman made extensive references to historical and legal testimony, including decrees of later councils. He also objected to the idolatry and superstition of the account of Constantine's miraculous recovery from leprosy and the unlikely form his gratitude took. Only at one point does he revert to the philological argument of that "man of most sharp judgment," Lorenzo Valla, that "the manner of speech . . . is far unlike to the custome of that age." His target, however, was the same, that is, papal supremacy; and so was the conclusion, which was "that this instrument came out of the same shop, whence innumerable other such inventions, fictions, and lies of the papacie came." The condemnation of Henry of Navarre was just one more instance of such Romanist fraud. As always, Hotman's principal concern was legal rather than historical, and in fact he apparently intended to pursue further his examination of the canonist tradition. It would be his intention, as he told Daniel Tossanus, "to show the ignorance of the Roman antichrist in the science of civil law"—much as his old friend Dumoulin had done 35 years before. Unfortunately Hotman never found the time to give 305

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT us his impressions about the contents of this Pandora's box which Navarre's cause had opened up for him. If the Brutish Thunderbolt gave Hotman the feeling of being back in the battle, it also renewed his apprehensions of persecution. It seemed to him that Geneva was even more of a target because of his polemical fusillade. "A man from Rome says that the Pope has already collected a million in gold for the destruction of our city," he confided to Grynaeus in November 1586. "My letters to the King of Navarre and my Brutum Fulmen have been intercepted in Toulouse and taken to the Pope. He has commissioned a priest to reply to it. And he is looking for an assassin, if he has not already found one, to kill me for 2,000 crowns." 22 This was not his imagination, Hotman added; he had heard it from a "close relative"—one of his Leaguer brothers? Characteristically, Hotman concluded with the martyrly comment that he would be happy "to die in the Lord." GENEVA, 12 JULY

1586

Hotman had other reasons to be worried. The city was practically in a state of siege, he told Grynaeus. "The Duke of Savoy has forbidden on pain of death . . . the export of a single grain of wheat. W e care nothing for his wheat, let him keep it; but to forbid Genevans from harvesting their own is unheard of. . . . Today it has been announced that gallows have been placed at the edge of the city to hang anyone trying to transport grain."23 Three months later things had not improved. "Today my daughter and a servant spent ten hours at the market to get a single bag of wheat. She finally returned after supper, and we celebrated as if it had been a free gift." Not that the situation was much better elsewhere, he added. "France is racked by plague, war, and famine." 22

T o Grynaeus, 27 Nov. 1586 (Hummel). Basel UB, G.II.6, f. 497'; cf. to Amerbach, 11 Nov. and Grynaeus, 7 Sept. 1586 (G.II.19, f. 217'; G.II.6, f. 406')• 23

306

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT The predicament of Geneva, now approaching crisis proportions, was closely linked with the "war of the three Henries" in France, but it centered most directly on Savoy, from which Geneva had won her liberty two generations before, though Savoy had never become reconciled to the fact. Eight years before, the threatening gestures of Duke Emmanuel Philibert toward the city had been one of Hotman's reasons for moving to Basel, and now the menace was even greater. Duke Charles Emmanuel, a man of many ambitions and strange designs, was obsessed from the beginning of his reign (1579) with the idea of restoring Geneva to his territories. During 1581-1582 he was occupied with his marriage plans with the Spanish Infanta, but upon his return from Madrid he resumed the enterprise. With the support of his father-in-law Philip II and, in 1585, with that of the revived League, he began to believe that the prize was within his grasp. In May of that year a conspiracy was planned; and in July, less than two weeks before the "Treaty of Nemours," the Duke's ambassador in Paris wrote that "Now is the time to carry out the Geneva affair . . . since the King himself wants to chase the Huguenots out of his land."24 Then Sixtus himself agreed to the plan to conquer Geneva, which would be combined with a campaign assisting the League forces in the south of France. It was at this point that Charles Emmanuel began to apply the device of economic blockade. At the same time, the Swiss cantons had begun to yield to the divisive thrust of the League, which also supported Savoy's design. Already the Catholic cantons, under the leadership of PfyfFer, had agreed to provide troops for the war in France and so in effect stood behind Charles Emmanuel, too. In October, then, the Duke began the move24 Rene de Lucinge, Lettres sur la debut de la ligue (158;), ed. A. Dufour (Geneva, 1964), p. 136 (6 July); cf. p. 205 (6 Oct.). In general see Rott, II; Gautier, Histoire de Geneve, V, 398ff; and above all Lucien Cramer, La Seigneurie de Geneve et la maison de Savoie, III, (Geneva, 1950), and IV, continued by Dufour (Geneva, 1958).

307

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

ment of troops and the construction of galleys to be used on Lake Leman to cut off Geneva's supplies. Meanwhile Geneva cast about desperately for help from Protestant cantons and German friends, and at times was forced to import food from Strasbourg and the Palatinate; Johann Casimir sent a supply of a kind of grain (korn oder rockem) grown in his own home territory.25 Geneva continued to protest the blockade both to the Swiss Diet in Baden and to the French ambassador at Soleure. Under pressure from Bern and Zurich the Duke lifted the ban, but only temporarily. In the summer of 1586 he reinstated the blockade under pain of death, and it was this edict, published at Chambery on 9 July, that Hotman was complaining about. In August the Duke lifted the ban again, but he continued to build boats and to fortify the southern shore of the lake; then in October he reimposed the blockade. This time he had still more impressive support since the Catholic cantons, under Spanish and Savoyard pressure, had organized themselves into the so-called "Borromeo League" (after the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan) against the Protestants, and since the Pope had again endorsed the enterprise. In response to this Geneva also began preparing for war, encouraged and assisted by such visiting Huguenot warriors as La Noue and Guitry, and during the winter obtained some troops from Bern and Zurich, although problems of financing and provisioning made it necessary to let them go in December. Within the city and the council a war party had emerged. One of the spokesmen for these hawks was Hotman's colleague at the academy and future editor Jacques Lect, who gave an eloquent address to the council on behalf of a preventive war.26 But the majority, following counsels of caution and of their reluctant allies, resisted such pleas for the time being. Among these were both Hotman and Beza, who had seen all too much of war and all too little of its fruits. 25 29

308

From Reuber, 25 Nov. 1587 (Ep 158). Published in Gautier, Histoire de Geneve, V, 575.

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

It was this sub-drama rather than the whole panorama of the "war of the three Henries" that absorbed Hotman or indeed that he was able to follow with any clarity. Even so it was confusing trying to keep up with the various levies and troop movements in and around Geneva, not to speak of the operations of the main forces in the west (Navarre in Poitou) and in the east (Lesdiguieres and the Duke of Savoy in Provence and Dauphine), the activities of the Pope, and the condition of Henry III. In the spring of 1587 the Protestants were busy assembling troops in Alsace, while the Catholics recruited Spanish and Italian mercenaries as well as Swiss and German Reiters. Hotman reported on much of this on the basis of many official and nonofficial sources of information, including old Protestant friends, various agents of Navarre, such military commanders as La Noue, Lesdiguieres, and Guitry, and later the French ambassadors Sillery (Nicolas de Brulart) and Sancy (Nicolas de Harlay) but too often he was dependent upon rumors and speculation. It is no wonder that his view became gloomier and gloomier along with Geneva's plight. In the city there was periodic panic because of the Duke of Savoy's machinations. In May, Hotman told one friend, there were two calls to arms in a single day, and weapons were distributed to the citizens (whose oath of allegiance included the duty of bearing arms for the city).27 Apprehensions increased, too, about the Catholic cantons, which were furious with their compatriots—ces Suisses bastardz— who went to the aid of the heretic Henry of Navarre. So the crisis grew. In July Protestant troops were milling around outside of Basel, and the next month Henry Ill's levies were in the area as well. Also present were various foreign agents, especially Spanish and Milanese, that worried Genevans, who were becoming desperate for outside 27

To Stuckius, 13 May 1587 (Ep 148), and Sillery to Henry III (Rott, II, 286-87). Cf. Hotman to Lobbetius, 22 June, 8 and 29 July, 8 Aug., 7 Sept., and to Grynaeus, 22 Aug. and 22 Sept. 1587 (Ep 15054, 156; Basel UB, G.II.6, S. 403', 450').

309

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT assistance. Much of the summer, Hotman told his correspondents, was spent in waiting for the arrival of Francois de Chatillon, the late Admiral's son who was now one of Navarre's lieutenants, though it was recognized that he had more important things to do than to guard a single city. Some troops were provided in September by Bern and Zurich, but they were hardly a match for the more than 5,000 sent by the "Roman antichrist" and several hundred more sent by Spain. Here, then, was the situation which Hotman and his three daughters faced: a constant shortage of food and money (added to an unusually cold winter), a growing threat of invasion from Savoy, and ever-diminishing hopes of returning to France. "On the one hand the fury of antichrist knows no bounds," wrote Hotman of the state of affairs there; "on the other hand a third of the country says that it will suffer a thousand deaths rather than see the King of Navarre excommunicated and declared a usurper." 28 Even so, it could not be as bad as in Geneva. Hotman was not exaggerating when he told his friends that many people were dying from hunger in and around the city, and there was worse to come. Henri Estienne would lose a daughter, niece, and aunt, and have to bury them in his own garden. Another friend, Chandieu, had to go off to join Navarre at Nerac, leaving four children and a sick wife behind. And such stories of hardship could be multiplied many times. Nor had Hotman entirely escaped family worries. Still more distressing than the husbandless condition of his daughters was his backsliding son, whom Hotman was ready now to disown. "My one-time son Daniel is doing the work of the Guises in Switzerland," he told Tossanus in the summer of 1587, "having been corrupted by one of my brothers." He added a request for Tossanus to speak to him: "That may move him to reform, or rather to regain his 28

To Amerbach, 8 Dec; to Grynaeus, 20 Dec. 1586, 7 and 17 Feb. 1587; to Tossanus, 8 May 1587 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 2i8 r ; G.II.6, ff. 449', 495% 448'i Ep 147).

310

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT 2

senses." " But fortunately this trouble was somewhat offset by a piece of good news which he had heard in the spring. His first grandson had been born in London, and he wrote a touching letter, one of the few that reveals him in a happy paterfamilial role, to his daughter-in-law, Jean's wife Jeanne (nee Saint-Martin), expressing his pleasure at the event. He had not been in touch with them but had heard about it through Navarre's agent in Switzerland at the time, Sancy, who had come to levy troops but who remained to take over command of the Genevan troops. "The enemy is always at our gates," he concluded his letter to Madame Hotman, " b u t . . . we hope very much to see the end of these troubles and a pacified France by the summer. I pray both of you to have patience and faith in the Lord, Who knows what is best for our souls as well as for our bodies. . . . God keep both, or rather all three of you."30 Otherwise Hotman had little reason to celebrate. The Genevan academy was in ruins even if he had wanted to resume his teaching duties. There were not many students, and even those few were inattentive; too often, the council complained, they and the masters both could be seen looking out the windows.31 In 1584, moreover, the council, pressed for funds, had suppressed the professorships in language, philosophy, and law, including the chairs of Lect and the young Isaac Casaubon. Two years later a remonstrance was presented, the council reconsidered, and the professors were recalled. But conditions did not improve, and Hotman resisted invitations for him to return to his classes. In any case Hotman had no intention of risking his life in this beleaguered city if he could avoid it. France he had given up on, however, and Germany was still out of the 29

13 June 1587 (Ep 149); cf. to Lingelsheim, 12 June 1585 (Ep

140). 30

20 May 1587 (Blok, 80). Geneva AE, RC, 26 July 1586; cf. Gautier, Histoire de Geneve, V, 413. 31

311

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT question. Lutheranism was triumphing everywhere, and as Reuber told him, there was no room for him even in the Calvinist enclave in Heidelberg protected by Johann Casimir. Basel was the only answer. But he did not want to go empty-handed; he wanted a house, a little garden, and some security for himself and his daughters. The only problem remaining, a crucial one, was money. From this time on Hotman's correspondence and energies were taken up with finding the financial means of returning to this, as he now realized, relatively quiet city on the Rhine. He made repeated, though largely vain, attempts to get money out of his property in Paris; he tried to get clients for consultations, paying subjects for dedications, and other kinds of "honoraria"; he translated Nicolas Balbini's life of the Marchese de Vico, Galeazzo Caracciolo; he begged help from patrons—500 crowns, for example, from his old Maecenas William of Hesse and smaller amounts from such friends as Reuber and Amerbach.82 But he could barely find enough for subsistence—which for him, of course, meant servants as well as his family and house. The move would have to wait. During the fall, troop movements and rumors continued to swirl around Geneva. Chatillon finally arrived late in August but declined to turn against the Duke of Savoy, who had just given him free passage. A few weeks later Bern and Zurich again sent troops as Savoyard forces were building up around the city. There was no major offensive, however, and even for Hotman the interest shifted elsewhere during the last weeks of 1587. The remarkable and indeed unique victory of the Huguenots at Coutras in October Hotman does not note in his extant letters, but he was deeply im32

To Grynaeus, 21 Apr., 27 Sept., 13 Oct.; to Zwinger, 13 Nov., to Tossanus, 13 Mar.; and from Reuber, 11 Jan. 1587 (Basel UB, G.II.6, ff. 446% 496% 445r; G.II.37, f. 72'; Ep 145, 144). On the translation, Geneva AE, RC, 82, f. 68r (28 Mar. 1587); and on Vico himself, B. Croce in La Critica, XXXI (1933), 161-78, 251-65, 321-39; and J. Bonnet in BSHPF, XVIII (1869), 192.

312

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

pressed by the defeat at Auneau a month later, so much so that he sent Grynaeus a detailed description of the deba­ cle.33 Pushing toward Paris after Coutras, the Reiters had been surprised by the Duke of Guise at Vimony, near Chartres, and again at Auneau. A treaty was signed, and Henry HI, who merely wanted them out of the country, agreed to give them safe conduct. According to Hotman, however, this was not carefully observed. Many of the Ger­ mans were killed while still in France, and the same thing happened, he suspected, to the Swiss who had failed to re­ turn to Bern. At least Navarre, he added, was still fighting. Many of the Reiters crawled back to Bern for refuge, as did Hotman's Silesian friend, Baron Fabian von Dohna, who had taken Johann Casimir's place as commander at the last moment. Dohna, whom Hotman sometimes helped with his Latin correspondence, did not return as a conquering hero, but Hotman accepted him practically as such and blamed the disaster on the perfidy of Henry III. Mean­ while, Guise was still approaching the frontier, causing an­ other panic. People were praying night and day, said Hotman, some remaining in churches for fifteen hours at a stretch. "Time is passed in preaching, reading scriptures, and singing hymns," he told Grynaeus. "We hope that God will not reject the prayers of those who beg His mercy." So he wrote on Christmas Day of 1587, just before the advent of that annus mirabilis to which astrologers had been look­ ing forward for over a century.

GENEVA, 3 MARCH 1588

So far the year did not seem very "wonderful" to Hotman, and in fact he was in a despondent mood. The best way he could find to express his feelings was the Vergilian tag, "Let 84 us die in battle." The next fine—"the only salvation for the β» 25 Dec. (Basel UB, G.II.6, ff. 44^-43^). * To Tossanus; cf. to Lingelsheim, 26 Feb. 1588 (Ep 162, 161). Aeneid, II, 353. s

313

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

beaten is to expect no salvation"—he did not quote, but it was surely on his mind. "The Guises have triumphed everywhere as if Christ Himself were giving up," he lamented to Tossanus. "Never before have such revels been seen in Paris as this recent crisis with its incredible exhibitions." Nor, so far as he had learned from Navarre and Lesdiguieres, was the war going well in the countryside, and the expected aid from the Duke of Wiirttemberg would not be forthcoming at all. At the same time, the threat from Savoy was ever present, and just the day before there were 200 soldiers outside the gates. No wonder Hotman's thoughts turned to death at times. "My age confirms this feeling," he went on, "but the thought of my children stops me. My only consolation is that, dead or alive, we belong to the Lord." Not that Hotman was giving up. Throughout the spring he continued to be engaged in the organization of the Huguenot opposition, providing information for Navarre and acting as a link with Lesdiguieres and various Swiss statesmen.85 In February we find him in correspondence with Dohna about conscripting troops in France; in March he recommended Chandieu to his friends in Basel for a mission on Navarre's behalf; beginning in April he was in constant contact with Sillery, the French ambassador in Soleur; and in May he conferred with the Sieur de Reaux (Antoine de Moret), who had come to obtain further support for Navarre and also to complain about the behavior of the Swiss troops the year before—as Hotman himself had heard from the Germans, they had been the first to turn tail and run at Auneau. All this activity was designed to counteract the current Savoyard and Spanish intrigues and the threat of the Suisses espanolisez. In his extant correspondence Hotman does not mention more direct measures, notably the Genevan raid in February against Vesena, the Savoyard as To Grynaeus, 8 Mar. 1588 (Basel UB, G.II.6, f. 444'); and from Navarre, 25 Jan. 1588, 8 May 1589; Chandieu, 19 Jan. 1589; Mornay, 13 May; Dohna, 18 Feb. 1588; Sillery, 20 Apr. 1589 (Blok, 86, 94, 85, 89, 88, 93). Cf. Sillery to Henry III, 30 July 1588 (Rott, II, 299).

314

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT post a bare league from Geneva. Ostensibly this was under­ taken, in accordance with Geneva's Old Testament moral­ ity, in retaliation against the seizure of a boatload of grain at Morges; but it was more than an eye-for-an-eye ex­ change. Indeed the killing (against orders) of three Savoy­ ards and the imprisoning of two others seemed to constitute a casus belli. In any case no one now doubted that war would come; the only question was when and how? Meanwhile there were grander events in the making, and Hotman may have heard about them from his son Jean, now in the service of the Earl of Leicester in the Netherlands but still in touch with his father. The Invincible Armada of Philip II had already set sail for England. Although this, to­ gether with the coordinated efforts of the League in France and Alexander of Parma in the Netherlands, seemed to epitomize the universal conspiracy which Huguenots had always imputed to Catholics, Hotman left no record of his reactions to this enterprise. Since he himself lived on the edge of the Spanish sphere of influence, he was hardly sur­ prised, though he may have been shocked by it. N o r could he have been much more shaken by the sensational "day of the barricades" in Paris which occurred two months after the "revels" he described (12 May), when the uprising of the Leaguers transformed the King literally into the "third Henry" and made the Duke of Guise, the self-advertised hero of Auneau, de facto sovereign. Shouts of "Vive le roi!" greeted him, as they had greeted his father 26 years before. What shocked Hotman more than these dramatics was the action taken by Henry III two months later, proclaiming the "edict of union" with the Guises as a "fundamental law" and renewing the campaign to exterminate the Huguenots. "I am sending this horrible edict of the most impious and 36 wicked tyrant the world has ever seen," he wrote to Amerbach. "His acts, schemes, and motives are so obscure that even the party of the Guises cannot trust him." And Hotman 3β 21 July 1588; cf. 3 Apr. (Basel UB, G.II.19, S. 230', 229'); cf. ML, II, 368, 500.

315

A BRUTISH T H U N D E R B O L T

went on to describe the reign of terror in Paris, where everyone was in arms. Citizens and preachers alike fought, and new martyrs were being made every day .The city—its commerce, justice, and police as well as its religion—was in total chaos. In Geneva things were, if possible, even more precarious. As a result of the "edict of union" the moderating influence of Henry III, quite unappreciated by Hotman, vanished, and the way seemed open for Charles Emmanuel. Hotman continued to hear his noisy preparations throughout the summer and assumed that he had united Catholic support. In fact, however, there was a new obstacle. Although the Pope had approved the enterprise, now set for September, what neither Hotman nor any of his fellow citizens could know was that Spain was withdrawing its support. The salvation of Geneva, if only temporary, was another benefit received by Protestants from the defeat of the Armada. The Duke of Savoy did not give up. He continued to exert pressure on the Catholic cantons for military aid. Despite the support of Pfyffer this was refused, but Geneva's allies were equally reluctant to underwrite any war with Savoy. Without Spanish or Swiss support, Charles Emmanuel decided to proceed by indirection, and chose as his target the little territory of Saluzzo.87 Since it lay to the south, Geneva was granted another reprieve, but in October Saluzzo fell to Savoy, and the blockade of Geneva was restored the following month. In December Charles Emmanuel was also working secredy to provoke an uprising in Lausanne and its environs against Bern. So Geneva seemed about to be strangled by Savoy's noose. Meanwhile, life in the city grew more difficult. Beza, whose wife died in the spring and who took another in the summer, seemed to be bearing up; but Hotman was in really desperate straits, expecially financially. He could extract nothing from his Parisian property nor even from his « ML, II, 692.

316

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT wife's small inheritance in Orleans. He continued to beg help from friends and patrons, including Johann Casimir, the Elector of Saxony, the Baron von Dohna, and Reuber, to whom he offered to dedicate his collected legal Observationes, being printed in Geneva.38 He even wrote to Henry Ill's ambassador Sillery, but received little satisfaction. "I am religious in my faith and in my promises and pride myself in keeping both in the Roman style," Sillery answered, "and I hope God will permit me so to continue. This is why I do not make promises that I cannot keep." As Hotman's debts were mounting, therefore, the money came in in mere dribbles. Reuber, though he declined the dedication, sent some funds through La Noue; Henry of Navarre sent in occasional rewards, including 150 livres in May 1588 and 333 crowns that December; Johann Casimir sent him 60 crowns, while the Elector of Saxony promised him a pension of 60 florins; and even Sillery made a contribution of 15 crowns (for which he took great credit—Henry III always wanted his money's worth). But none of this was enough to meet Hotman's need, which was a passport to Basel. And this was complicated by his declining health and morale. In March 1588 he even had to decline Amerbach's invitation to compose an epitaph for the recently deceased Zwinger; he had, it seems, no more poetry left in him.

GENEVA, 16 APRIL

1589

Sixty-five years old and retired from academic work, Hotman was not to be spared one last war after all—the "war of '89" between Geneva and Savoy. It had been in progress over a month when he reported to William of Hesse how Henry III, fed up at last with the League and freed to some 38

To Lingelsheim, 5 Mar., and Camerarius, 19 June 1588 (Ep 163, 187); and from the following: Reuber, 24 Mar., 25 Apr., 21 May; from Henry of Navarre and Du Pins, 24 May; from Sillery, 18 May, 14 July, 1588 (Ep 164-66; Blok, 90, 91, 95, 98); cf. Mornay, IV, 286 (to Reaux, 30 Dec. 1588).

317

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT extent by the death of Henry of Guise, had turned to Henry of Navarre, who, Hotman thought, now had most of the major cities of France with him.39 When Hotman heard about the assassination of Guise on the previous Christmas Eve, he must have agreed with the contemporary pamphleteer who had written of him that, according to the law of the Twelve Tables, "he is not a murderer who kills another by command of the people." In any case the turn of events was enough to lead Hotman not only to accept but even to serve the man whom he had called the "wickedest tyrant the world has ever seen," and so at last Hotman had sovereignty as well as justice on his side. So it was, too, that after decades of suffering provocations, Geneva was able to take the offensive, and Hotman was not entirely unhappy about it, inconvenient as it might be personally. Like Beza, who by now had also joined the hawks, Hotman had no doubt that it was a just war. What had determined the long-delayed decision was the mission of Hotman's old friend Sancy, who had come to Switzerland in disguise in January on the King's behalf. He had kind words and promises for the Swiss Protestants and clearly wanted to teach the Duke of Savoy a lesson for his presumptuous attack on Saluzzo the previous fall; Henry III certainly did not approve of his allies' rewarding themselves in this fashion. Sancy's principal mission, of course, was to collect money and troops (for the King did not want Savoy's lesson to be at his own expense), and in this he was quite successful, recruiting over 10,000 men from the vicinity of Geneva, Hotman said, and others from Bern (resentful over Savoy's attempted coup in Lausanne), Zurich, and Schaffhausen. In mid-February he arrived in Geneva to urge the council to action. In return for 100,000 crowns 89

Ep 183. "Discours de ce qui s'est passe es environs de la ville de Geneve depuis le commencement d'avril 1589 . . . ," ML, III, 696; Geisendorf (ed.), Les Annalistes genevois, p. 534; cf. Cramer, T.a Seigneurie de Geneve, IV (Dufour); Rott, II, 3095; and Gautier, Histoire de Geneve, V, 403fT.

318

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

he promised his full support. By now the council needed little urging. At the same time, Charles Emmanuel, though being restrained by the Pope and Spanish King and pestered for help by Mayenne, who succeeded Guise as the League's military chief, was still contemplating war. For many Catholics, certainly, this would not be an unpopular step, and one publicist urged him to destroy once and for all this city filled with exiles, apostates, murderers, and heretics.40 Before the Duke could arrive at a decision, however, Geneva made its move. On 2(12) April the council decided to fight and, what is more, to carry the war as far as possible from the city. At ten o'clock that evening the troops moved out and the surprise attack began. Though a bystander, Hotman followed the plan of war carefully and was proud to enjoy the hospitality and friendship of Sancy himself, the man who gave the signal to begin.41 The strategy depended upon a three-pronged attack (upon Faucigny, Arve, and Cluse) and was to be synchronized with the operations of Lesdiguieres in the south of France. If Savoy could be cut off from Spanish troops in the Netherlands, Hotman hoped, both Switzerland and Germany would be saved. Meanwhile Sancy came to discuss his role with the council and to settle the treaty between Geneva and Henry III, which was duly signed on 18 April. Five days later, as the King's representative, he took over command of the Swiss army from Navarre's man Guitry. Hotman's old friend and translator Simon Goulart accompanied the army as chaplain. The successes of the first few weeks, including victories at Thon and Ripaille and the occupation of three prefectures, were most encouraging, Hot40 Remonstrance faicte a monseigneur le due de Savoy . . . pour pour-suyvre et conttnuer ce qu'il a heureusement commence centre la malheureuse ville de Geneve: Azyle et refuge de tous Heretiques, Brigans, et voleurs de la Chrestiente (Lyon, 1589; Ars. 8°H. 1779410). 41 To Frederick Count Palatine, 17 Apr., Camerarius, 10 May, Amerbach, 28 May 1589 (Ep 184, 185; Basel UB, GJI.19, f. 235')·

319

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

man told Amerbach.42 He was further encouraged by the news that Henry of Navarre (attended by Hotman's son Jean, among others) was besieging Paris itself. But Hotman's optimism was short lived. As usual Henry III was concerned only with his own plight—which was indeed desperate enough, as Hotman realized. As usual he had made merely a half-pirouette to find a more suitable partner, but what he really needed in the mad whirl of the eighth war of religion was someone who could lead and support him. Inevitably, money was the determining factor. While Sancy was egging on the Genevans and while Sillery was playing his duplicitous game in Soleure, Henry was already changing his mind. The day before Geneva had decided upon war, in fact, he had sent a letter recalling Sancy, though it did not arrive for another month. So in May, his finances and probably also his welcome being exhausted, Sancy requested permission to take his leave. All the Swiss allies agreed—except of course for Geneva. Hotman was depressed by the news. "If the King abandons us," he told Camerarius, "we expect a siege and destruction. Nothing more is needed to finish off me and my family."43 In effect this is just what happened, although Sancy left a thousand men to guard Geneva. Savoy, receiving help, Hotman was sure, from Lyon as well as from the papacy, continued to hover about the gates despite harassment from Bernese and Genevan troops. The countryside was being decimated, as Hotman could see from his windows, and the fighting became increasingly cruel. One atrocity story passed on by Hotman was that the Spanish were using the bodies of the Protestant dead as fuel for their furnaces. A particularly shocking massacre was carried out by the Savoyard forces at Bonne on 22 August.44 At the same time, idolatry was being reestablished, he complained, and the «To To 44 To GJI.19, 43

320

Amerbach, 30 Apr. 1589 (Basel UB, G.II.19, f. 234')· Camerarius, 19 June 1589 (Ep 187). Amerbach, 28 May; to Lingelsheim, 30 July 1589 (Basel UB, f. 235'; Ep 170).

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

morale of the Protestant soldiers was degenerating rapidly. Their loose manners, as reflected in contemporary drinking songs (so thought the council in condemning them), was in striking contrast to Huguenot discipline under Cond6 at the outset of the religious wars; and this must have added to Hotman's sense of shock. Then fell the crudest blow of all—worse, for the Genevans, than the death of Henry III, which happened at about the same time. After destroying the fortress of Arva, Bern decided to sign a separate peace with Savoy and to move its army back north, leaving Geneva to fight alone. The day after the massacre at Bonne the troops sloughed through the outskirts of Geneva. "On Saturday the 2 3rd of August," one eyewitness reported, "the whole army of Bern passed through Geneva, its fire put out, coming in by the Port Neuf and leaving by the Porte Cornavin.. . . Throughout the city nothing could be heard but cries and laments, some by widows, others by orphans, whose husbands and fathers had been killed at Bonne. 'Traitors! Traitors! Traitors!' they shrieked at the Bernese." This must have been one of Hotman's most dismal birthday celebrations (it was his sixty-fifth).45 It was also the last straw for him; he decided to leave no matter what the consequences, without even waiting for the pension promised him by the Elector of Saxony. Less than a week later he made his first attempt. Since all land routes were blocked it had to be by the lake. "Yesterday I tried to flee with little Theodorula, Amerbach's goddaughter," he wrote Grynaeus on 30 August, "but we would have had to spend the night in an open boat and put up with continuous rain. My friends intervened and made me get out of the boat."46 For several days after this Hotman was ill with severe diarrhea, but he was determined to leave 45 To Camerarius, 6 Oct., and to Lingelsheim, 30 July 1589 (Ep 192, 170); cf. Geisendorf, Les Annalistes, p. 536. 48 To Grynaeus, 30 Aug.; Strein, 26 Oct.; Camerarius, 24 Sept. 1589 (Basel UB, G.II.6, f. 451'; Ep 193, 190).

321

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT anyway. Sometime in early September he got out of bed and took Theodorula to a boat, leaving his two elder daughters behind. They traveled by night and arrived next morning at Morges, half way along the northern shore of the lake to Lausanne. From there they went to Basel. It was his last voyage. BASEL, 4 OCTOBER

1589

"I came here a naked castaway and have been a refugee for over a month," Hotman wrote to Lingelsheim.47 Although this report started out like so many other complaining-begging letters, Hotman was still thinking about his poor comrades in Geneva and about those traitors of Bern —whose weakness for idolatry, hostility to Geneva, and political self-interest he well remembered from his youthful years at Lausanne. "I came here bruised by that conflict which Geneva has been suffering and which, but for God's mercy, would have brought defeat, thanks to those untrustworthy wretches who care neither about treaties, nor religion, nor honor, whether among contemporaries or posterity." N o w they were selling boats to Savoy, he continued, and were threatening Geneva itself with their arms. Hotman was still working, it is clear, for his Cause, still working for Navarre, now Henry IV, who at this very moment was doing battle with the Duke of Mayenne and would beat him off the next day. H e continued to make reports to friends in Germany and France, though he found it difficult to send them by the usual route through Strasbourg because of brigands, and so he transmitted them through his friend Stuckius in Zurich by way of Niirnberg. After Bern's defection, indeed, he looked increasingly to Zurich for help, appealing to old feelings of solidarity. Zurich should have a vital interest in Geneva's plight, he told Stuckius, and should be in on decisions, "for it is an old «Ep 91. 322

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

rule of law that what touches all should be approved by all"—a rule, incidentally, that figured prominently in the Franco-Gallia.ia The same principal worked in reverse, he continued, that what threatens all, referring to Savoy, should be opposed by all. In the same terms as the Venetian ambassador who was assessing the problem, Hotman argued that Geneva was the key and gateway to Switzerland, and Bern could not be entrusted alone with this key. After all, Geneva was not the only city needing access to Lyon and southern France for commercial reasons. "I urge your doctors and pastors to imitate the courage and generosity of Grynaeus, who recently spent the better part of a sermon in behalf of the city and church of Geneva . . . , " he concluded. "So arouse the most powerful men in your city and make them aware of Geneva's peril." But it promised to be another bad winter. In September Geneva had suffered a serious defeat at the hands of Charles Emmanuel, while the economic blockade remained in effect and a small lake battle went on between Genevan and Savoyard galleys. At the same time Bern had agreed to the perfidious Treaty of Nyon with Savoy, though Hotman continued to hope that it would not be ratified. In December Sancy came to Basel and seemed to Hotman optimistic about the war in France. Lesdiguieres continued to be successful in Dauphine, and many cities were reportedly returning to Henry IV. But the King had given up on the siege of Paris, and much fighting obviously remained. Sancy was organizing still another campaign. "I pray God to give him success," Hotman wrote.49 Nor did the new year bring better news, and even in Basel citizens were still paying the "war tax" (Soldatengeld). "The Swiss Protestants are going to hold a conference about the matter of Geneva," Hotman wrote Lobbet. "Bern is complaining about this and 48 26 Sept. 1589 (Ep 157); cf. Francesco Vendramin, 11 Sept. 1589 (Alberi, ser. 2, V, 156). 49 To Strein, 26 Oct.; to Stuckius, 4 Dec. 1589 (Ep 193, 159).

323

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT is apparently opposed to any settlement." Geneva's fate was still uncertain.60 This letter, dated 9 (19) January 1590, was the last one Hotman wrote. He had resumed his teaching and gave private lessons on the law of the Roman republic. Some money was coming in, including the promised pension from the Saxon Elector, but the future was not bright. "This year brings many hardships and conflicts . . . ," predicted one contemporary astrologer, "and many diseases, such as hydropsies." Hotman had never regained his health entirely, and it was from precisely this disease that he was now suffering.51 He tried to get medical advice, and then he prescribed for himself (he had long been fascinated by alchemy and had corresponded with Zwinger on the subject). In any case he managed to put the wrong medicine in his wine. He became worse and had to take to his bed late in January. His daughter, his friends, and his doctors watched helplessly as the end approached. BASEL, T H U R S D A Y 12

(22)

FEBRUARY

1590

Hotman breathed his last. He had not actually died in battle, but for an academic gentleman of sixty-five it was close enough to such a martyrly honor. To the end he had served his profession, his party, his King, and his God; all of them finally bound up inextricably with the "cause." His funeral was attended by all of his old friends and colleagues of Basel the next day, while Grynaeus delivered the sermon. He was buried in the cathedral, in the company of Erasmus, the elder Amerbach, Theodore Zwinger, and others; and an inscription, still visible today, was placed in the cloister in 50

Ep 195; cf. Ochs, Geschichte Basel, V, 315. Amerbach to Jean Hotman, 17 Feb. 1590 (Ep, Part 2, 104); cf. Pierre l'Oyseleur de Villiers to the same, 14 May 1590 (Blok, 107). Cf. Correspondance de Bonaventura Vulcanius, ed. H. de Vries de Heekelingen (La Haye, 1923), p. 87 (to Th. Rehdinger, July 1575). 51

324

A BRUTISH T H U N D E R B O L T

his honor, a lapidary summation of his multi-faceted, international, but single-minded career. Amerbach kept a record of his last days and had an inventory drawn up of Hotman's pitifully few belongings, among them six spoons and a fork (just enough for his family), a few books inscribed "a mon filz Jehan Hotman" in his own hand, and a few French and Spanish coins. His cash totaled only 30 crowns while his debts were at least 350, and so very soon the creditors began coming to Amerbach, who had been chosen as Hotman's executor.62 According to the testament, Daniel, the apostate, was disinherited. He died 44 years later as Abbe de Saint-Nicaire of Rheims and pretre de VOratoire. Just as Hotman had disowned the Parisian Hotmans—his "brothers" and "relatives" as well as his "father" were defined in confessional rather than genealogical terms—so now he disowned one of his sons. To the end, it seems, the "cause" took precedence not only above political allegiance but also above the "grades of cognation and agnation" he had celebrated as a young man. The ties that Hotman came to honor were those made by the blood of martyrs. A week before Hotman's death, Amerbach had written to his eldest son Jean in London, but it was over two years before he could make his way to Basel. According to the will, Jean not only inherited the fief of Villiers and his father's library but was also entrusted with the guardianship of his three unmarried sisters. Arriving in September 1592, Jean Hotman looked over his legacy. He was irritated to discover that the authorities in Basel had taken over some of the books, no doubt to cover some of the debts, but he did come into possession of a large quantity of his father's papers. The task of sorting out and preparing these manuscripts for publications was burdensome—"because no mortal," he remarked justly, "can follow that handwriting"— 52 The "Inventaire" and account in Amerbach's hand is in Basel UB, G.II.13·, ff. 89'-92T.

325

A BRUTISH THUNDERBOLT

and occupied him for more than a year.53 A few of these mainly legal and theological works appeared in 1593; most of the rest seven years later in the collected works which were edited, not very satisfactorily by modern standards, by his former colleague Jacques Lect. These three fat folio volumes embody Hotman's scholarly achievement. After clearing up these affairs in Basel, Jean Hotman returned to France and eventually to the service of Henry IV. He became reconciled to his Catholic family and even attended his uncle Charles at his deathbed, though he consoled him, as L'Estoile recorded, "in the fashion of those of the religion."84 He also became involved in the promotion of a kind of irenic, conciliatory scheme reminiscent of Baudouin's program over thirty years before. Although his father would very likely be turning over in his grave, this was quite in keeping with these less heated times, beginning in 1593, when the conflicts were at last subsiding, and when the age of revolution had at last run its course. It was in keeping, too, with the separation of the Huguenot cause from its political leadership. The "end of ideology" was unmistakably marked by the pivotal event of this year—the abjuration of Henry IV, or as Beza preferred to put it, his "return to the religion of Machiavelli." It was just as well that Hotman did not live to see it. 53

Jean Hotman to Mondavius and (?) (Ep, Part 2, no, 109). *L'Estoile (Henri IV), p. 473. Cf. Corrado Vivanti, Lotta politica e pace religiosa in Francia fra Cinque e Seicento (Turin, 1963), pp. i89fr. s

326

XIII. CONCLUSION: A N A G E OF RESOLUTION " 'Politiques'... are those who give more to men than to God." Jacques Charpentier, 1569 " 'Politiques' are those who do not want to dip their hands in the blood of Christians." Pierre du Belloy, 1587 PARIS, 22

M A R C H 1594,

7:00

A.M.

THE DAY of triumph for Politiques, of some satisfaction for Huguenots, of great joy for most Frenchmen not committed to parties. King Henry IV entered the city through the same gates by which his predecessor had left six years before. There was a brief encounter with some recalcitrant Swiss, who refused to join in the cries of "Vive le roi!" and who were, a few of them, killed and thrown into the Seine. But aside from this incident he was welcomed warmly and took over his capital, as he was proud to note, without the death of a single citizen. After a mass of celebration at NotreDame, he settled down to work. Within the next few days there was a flood of letters and legislation touching on every aspect of national life; the Parlement was reestablished and put under the control of the "King's men"; and even the University of Paris was brought around.1 There were still outstanding problems: a dissident peasantry, the remnants of the League, and unnumbered social and institutional wounds to heal. But at least the task of reconstruction had begun. EUROPE, 1594

The storms which had battered Hotman most of his life were finally passing. It was a year of peace for most of 1

L'Estoile; De Thou; Pasquier; Isambert, XV, No. 59 et seq.

327

CONCLUSION

Europe, the first for over three decades that promised much future stability. The Counter-Reformation as well as Protestantism had for a while become stagnant, or at least less aggressive, and a degree of balance was restored to the international scene. Was it exhaustion or cooler heads that came at last to prevail? Whatever the case, ideological drives had ceased to be quite so prominent, at least on levels of policy and decision (for pamphlets were still flying thick and fast). To Protestants and Catholics alike "politique" had been a derogatory epithet to be coupled with "heretic," or alternately with "antichrist"; and imprecations against "that atheist Machiavelli" might come from either party.2 Hotman himself inclined toward this view. But such high-mindedness was eroded by the grinding tragedy of years of civil war, and by this time the position of these patriotic anti-ideologues was opposed by few aside from a dwindling number of die-hard Leaguers. This was not a world that Hotman knew nor, for that matter, one that he helped much to create, but it was surely one in which he would have found rewards and a certain contentment. Switzerland, although he would not have remained there, was finally enjoying a respite from the interminable struggle with Savoy. The war of '89 from which Hotman had fled had dragged on for four years, a struggle for survival as far as Genevans were concerned, though a very marginal conflict with regard to the civil wars in France. Moving away from his traditional alliance with Spain, Charles Emmanuel had not only given up his share of the fighting in southern France but, the previous September, had also signed an agreement with Geneva. Indeed, after his truce with Henry IV expired in January and, a few weeks later, after Lyon declared for Navarre, he began to find himself on the defensive. For Geneva the crisis was over, at least for a time; and although the heroic days of the 2

Advis aux Catholiques frangais . . . principalement sur les ruzes des politiques, atheistes, forguers de nouvelles, et aultres ennemys de Dieu (Paris, 1589; LN 1393), p. 13.

328

CONCLUSION

Escalade, the final encounter with Savoy, were yet to come, this legendary republic was already losing some of its political significance and revolutionary reputation. Hotman was not able to enjoy the peace and quiet, of course, nor could Beza, who was old, tired, and unused to the idea of compromise. In the Empire partisans of Hotman's old cause had less reason to rejoice. With the deaths of Johann Casimir and William of Hesse two years before, Calvinism was leaderless (though William's son Maurice was emerging as a champion) and yet continued to be assailed as devilish infidelity not only by Catholics but also by Lutherans, who clung more persistently than ever to that Formula of Concord which Hotman had fought. The Lutheran establishment itself, on the other hand, was strong. At the imperial Diet held in Heilbron in March several Protestant princes issued a remarkably aggressive declaration of religious freedom for ecclesiastical states as well as for imperial towns, which would prohibit Catholic rulers from expelling Protestant subjects; and they went so far as to refuse Emperor Rudolph aid against the Turks. But the balance was precarious. Trouble was already brewing in Jtilich, Cleves, and Berg. Nominal peace there was, but a true resolution would be a long time in coming. One change which Hotman would have applauded was the evident decline of Spain after the Armada—decline in terms not of naval strength, which in fact had been more than recovered, but of political and military influence. Old, ill, disillusioned, Philip II had clearly lost his crusade against world-wide heresy. Overextended, virtually bankrupt, and partially discredited, his empire had ceased to be the pivot of international relations. Philip was unable to count on the support of the Pope, unable to continue the struggle in France, and barely able to keep an army in the field against the Dutch. It was in the Netherlands, indeed, that his weakness was most conspicuous. In four campaigns William of Orange's son Maurice of Nassau had swept the 329

CONCLUSION

northern provinces practically clean of Spanish troops, and now the Estates General was truly sovereign. At last, as Motley wrote of the situation this year, "the commonwealth of the Netherlands . . . had rounded itself into definite shape." There were other cracks in the ultramontane facade, most notably the growing estrangement between Spain and the papacy. This had in fact begun during the fulminating pontificate of Sixtus V nine years before (even while Hotman was assailing him) and had continued under his successors. The current Pope, Clement VIII, who found Philip II's proprietary attitude toward the Spanish church insufferable, widened the gap. At this time, moreover, the papacy was adopting, or being driven to, a somewhat more moderate international stance while continuing to encourage the progress of internal ecclesiastical reform. The fact is that, without Spanish support and under the prevailing conditions of political withdrawal, such a game was no longer one which the Pope could effectively play. It is perhaps not surprising that he went so far as to reprove the Jesuits for their political meddling, or that henceforth it was the Jesuit order rather than the papacy or Spain that became the symbol and the scapegoat of ultramontanism. The key to this transformation, of course, was the restored, if not wholly reintegrated, monarchy of France. After what was probably the bitterest civil war in European history, it was being pacified at last. One by one the provinces and towns were returning to obedience. It had not been an easy process, and the Caesarean rebirth had left its scars. For over four years King Henry IV had carried on the struggle to reconquer his realm. The great prize was Paris, but with the failure of the siege in the summer of 1590, he had given up the idea of taking it by force. Moreover, it became increasingly obvious that mere military action could never secure Henry's throne for him despite the bi-partisan growth of the Politiques, who had become his principal supporters. The only solution was for the King to 330

CONCLUSION

be received back into the faith of the majority of his sub­ jects. What made this somewhat embarrassing was the fact that Henry had already made such a move—in 1572 to save his skin. What made it impossible for a long time was the fact that he could not afford to alienate his Huguenot com­ rades in time of war, although there had been talk of con­ version for almost ten years, ever since he had become heir presumptive to the throne. In 1593 the move was finally made, after a long diplomatic and propaganda campaign insured that the conversion and absolution of the King would be accomplished within the framework and by the authority of the Gallican church.3 Not everyone was pleased. The Leaguers were infuriated; the Huguenots, including Beza, were appalled. Extremists of both parties found it hard to approve of a man who would sell his soul (or buy it) not only to save his life but also to gain the "Most Christian" crown. Huguenots con­ tinued to fume and Leaguers to rage, and indeed a Jesuitinspired attempt on Henry's life at the end of this year pro­ voked another outburst of anti-Romanism, leading to the expulsion of the order. Yet no one could have been much surprised at the King's act: it was the logical outcome both of his Politique orientation and the conditions of rulership in the sixteenth century, and probably of his temperament as well. Like Beza, Hotman would no doubt have been dismayed to see idolatry, after fighting it all of his life, returned to France; but unlike Beza, he would most likely have gone back to receive his well-earned reward and to recover his property. Surely he would have enjoyed seeing the revolu­ tionary epithet applied for a change to his enemies— ligueurs rebelles replacing heretiques rebelles as a stand­ ard pamphleteering formula. To some extent, too, he would have approved of the fact that Henry IV's restoration was 3 Pierre Pithou, De iusta et canonica absolutione Henrici ΠΠ (Paris, 1594). Cf. Ernst Stahelin, Der Uebertritt Konig Heinrichs des Vierten von Frankreich zur romisch-katholischen Kirche (Basel, 1856).

331

CONCLUSION

in many ways truly a "rebirth," that is, a conscious and almost antiquarian return to old national and constitutional principles. In this very year, for example, four classic defenses of old-fashioned and rabidly anti-Romanist Gallicanism were revived—those of Charles Dumoulin, Jean du Tillet, Etienne Pasquier, and Baptiste Mesnil—while the whole tradition was summed up in what was to be the official definition of the "liberties of the Gallican church," compiled by Pierre Pithou, Hotman's former legal representative and Henry IV's current advocate general.4 These men, too, wanted to recover the "ancient constitution" of France, and they, too, fought for "French truth." The difference was, of course, that they were traditionalists, while Hotman never ceased in some sense to be a fundamentalist—they were "reformers" while he was a radical and wanted indeed, in Pascal's words, "to go back to the fundamental and primitive laws of the state which had become corrupted through evil customs." As he had personally chosen a new identity, a new source of authority, and a new set of values, so politically he wanted to remake society in a new image. It is true that he operated within the framework of feudal relationships and had no intention of subverting the basic economic or legal institutions of society. Yet he did envisage a number of profound transformations: he wanted to restore government and the legal system to a primitive and idealized perfection, to overthrow the old ecclesiastical establishment, to bring about a change in the relationship between men and political authority, and to gain acceptance for a new standard of morality and a new idea of Christian liberty. Because of his appeal to pre4

Dumoulin, Consultatio an Jesuitae sint recipiendi in regno Franciae (Paris [1594]), cf. Ch. VII, n. 3 above; Du Tillet, Memoire et advis . . . faict en Van 1551. sur les libertez de I'eglise gallicane ([Paris], 1594); Pasquier, Le Plaidoye ... pour I'universite de Paris dejfendresse centre les Jesuites (Paris, 1594), 1st edn. 1564; Du Mesnil, Plaidoye ... en la cause de Vuniversite de Paris et des Jesuites (Paris, 1594), 1st edn. 1564; and Pithou, Les Libertez de I'eglise gallicane (Paris, 1594).

332

CONCLUSION

and practically supra-historical principle, because of his doctrinaire approach, and because of his willingness to resort to conspiracy and violence, Hotman was, in the context of his theologically oriented age, a true revolutionary. It may be true that Hotman's "revolution" was less successful than Henry IV's "resolution." Yet it did have a more formative impact upon European life and thought, causing over a century of upheavals and leaving scars on the European conscience for an even longer time. What would the great reformers have said if brought back to life to see their followers still fighting a century after Luther took his stand at the Diet of Worms? Would they have lamented their handiwork, as one pamphleteer had them do in the early stages of the Thirty Years' War? 5 Or would they have been as militant as before? Whatever the case, they would have a strong feeling of deja-vu, and so no doubt would Hotman. More profound, perhaps, were the long-range effects of this revolution, which represented both a seedbed of and a proving ground for the most searching and subversive political, constitutional, and historical investigation and speculation. Indeed, through its ultimate demands and transcendent ideals and detached from its original theological program, it led ultimately to the rationalistic political theories of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, especially to ideas of social contract, legal uniformity, and individual liberty. And finally, Hotman's revolution illustrates what happens when a dissident and divided society is invaded by a coherent and uncompromising ideology—and what might happen to an idealistic and uncompromising man when he is caught up in it. It is a pattern that has been repeated more than once in the succeeding four centuries. Nor can we hope to have seen the last of it. s Le Dialogue de Calvin et de Luther revenus du nouveau monde sur les affaires de I'Europe (n.p., 1622; Paris, BPF).

333

A P P E N D I X I. T H E H O T M A N S OF PARIS

I. Lambert (14 children)

Pierre (4) III. Charles (2)

Francois (6)

Franjois

Charles (8)

Timoleon

II. Philippe

FRANCOIS (11)

Jean

Jean

Philippe Charles

Antoine

Pierre Daniel Theodorie Suzanne Marie

Franjois (4)

335

A P P E N D I X I I . L E T T E R FROM FRAN£OIS BAUDOUIN TO BONIFACIUS A M E R B A C H * Venit superioribus diebus ad me explorator Gallogermanus, homo tam mihi probe iampridem notus, quam se cantum tectumque esse putat. Tam officiosum tamen salutorum excepi perhumaniter, mecumque et preansus et canatus est, ut me scilicet magis falleret. Ibi homo suasis narrare cepit ea de re vir clariss. quae mihi pergrata, ut fuerunt, fore sciebat. Paulo post vero rescivi hunc impostorem, alibi longe alia iactasse, in quibus non solum mihi, sed et tibi, cuius no­ mine abutebatur, iniuriam faciebat. Quid ni vero id auderet homo impudens, qui longe tetriora audet, quae tu aliquando audies! Ο miseram Germaniam, quandam imprudens alet tales in suo sinu serpentes. Nunquam existimabo ilium tibi imponere facile posse. Sed audet tamen et iactare et scribere ita tibi commendasse Duareni declamationem, quam tibi obtulit, ut / de nobis actum sit. Ego vero credo team legisse eo animo, quo vir gravissimus, sapientdssimus, sanctissimus legeret. Responsionem nunc tamen quandam ad te missimus, quam ut eodem animo perlegas, rogamus, deposita amici persona, sumpta indicis senere et religiosi, hoc est, tua. Auctores et subscriptores omnes cum vales vel erit necesse, profitebor. Ο misera certamina: sed lacessibus, et ita lacessitis, necessaria. Unum superest humaniss. Domine, in quo tibi satisfaciamus. Jampridem iactat adversarius te vehementer improbare scholam illam civilem Argentin. cum sua oratione: hocque praeiudicio conficto, ut magna tui nominis auctoritas est, multos fallit atque percellit. Id rescivimus, quod tempore iam sub preto erat responsio. Dixi certo sciri me longe aliam esse tuam sententiam, ut talis tantique viri et boni et sapienter esse debet. •25 April 1556 (Basel UB, G.II.21, f. i44 r - v ).

336

APPENDICES

Visum itaque multus fuit esse necesse, ut ea etiam ederetur ad refellendam adversarii impudentem calumniam. Utinam satis fuisse temporis, ut te prius de ea editione consulere potuissem. Sed quod factum est tamen, ita factum esse videtur ut cum eius omnes circumstantias, existimemus rationem illam suam constare, ut hoc necessario praesidio bonam causam defensam esse non moleste ferat aequitas tua. Si quid tamen sit in toto libello, cuius ratio reddenda sit, reddemus. Scimus dam et obscure adversarios multa cavillari, quia non omnia forte adhuc patefacta sint satisf. Sed de iis priusquam pronuntietur, etiam petimus ut audiamus. Vale vir clariss. Argent. VII cal. Maii. Fran. Balduinus tuus.

337

A P P E N D I X I I I . T H R E E L E T T E R S FROM H O T M A N το P H I L I P M E L A N C H T H O N * I. Melanthoni, parenti meo venerando Franc. Hotomannus S. D. Hunc libellum anno superior commisi cuidam ut tibi eum meo nomine offerret: verum ex eo tempore hominem illius vidi nusquam. Itaque cum adhuc novi nihil quod tibi offerrem meae erga te observantiae ac pietatis testimonium, haberem, hie autem ad re iret Do. Timotheus—Gersonius, iterum illi committere hunc libellum volui, cum hac epistola, quam tibi esse cupio pignus eius animi quo tuas virtutes coloae ac veneror, sperans fore, ut si Deus mihi facultatem dederit sub huius aetatis finem te coram conveniam ac salutem; nam hie Dom. Timotheus principis sui mandato ac nomine, luculenta sane proposita conditione, me Regiomontem evocat. Quid tamen facturus sim valde incertus sum. semper octo abhunc annis vixi cum Domino Calvino, ex quo millies deto apud multos sane insignes viros audivi. Hac tamen aetate propter patris mei obitum, et Geneva urbis odium mirificum Argentinam veni. tibi cum ex Dom. Grempio et Dom. Sleidano amicissimis meis audirem te unum omnium optimo scire posse quam parte Germaniae Hotomannorum familia sit, rogare te volui, ut si qua ratione id possis explores: nam avus meus Lutetiam venit adolescens nobilis oblevitatem quandam amatoriam a patris iricundia profugens: Illic viduum iuvenem duxit; ex qua XVIII libros suscepit, in his patrem meum, qui dum * 24 May 1556 (?), 21 Jan. 1557, 1 Jan. 1559 (?) (Paris BN, Dupuy, 797, S. 2i2 T -i3 r ; Breslau, Rh. 402, No. 238, now Berlin, published in Gillet, Crato von Crafftsheim, II, 466-67; and Paris BSG, 1458, ff. 55"56').

338

APPENDICES

vixit, senatoris Parisiensis munere ita funitus est, ut amplius mille Christianis martyrio aiEcerit, neque si diutius illic fuissem, manu impias a me prohibiturus putabatur. Adhuc tamen me Deus in ecclesia sua / conservavit, in qua spere me, quod reliquum est vita confecturum. Vale clarissime vir et parens venerande. Argentinae IX Cal. Jun. Vilerii nomen ne offendat scire te volui, praedii sive fundi mei nomen esse, nam aliud propter mei patrimonii periculum, cui multi insidiantur, usupare asus non sum. Iterum vale vir praestantissme et me ama. II. Clarissimo viro, venerando Parenti meo, Dno Philippo Melanchthoni. Witebergae. Franc. Hottomannus S. D. Venerande Pater, Gratiam tibi pro singulari tuo in me beneficio habeo, quantam possum maximam, habebo quoque dum vivam. Vix dici potest, quantam voluptatem mihi testimonium hoc de familia nostra tuum attulerit. Quod si spes, quam de tuo adventu mirificam omnes concepimus, nos fallat, non diffido, quin aliquando istuc sim, turn tui salutandi turn Otmannorum nostrorum visendorum caussa, excursurus. Si qui tamen literati essent et verae religionis cultores, ad eos ego lubenter, si mihi autor esses, scriberem interea quasique aditum ad eorum amicitiam tentarem. Quanquam ut ad nos venias, quod ardentibus votis expectamus, quum ex te plura de iis audiero et ex clariss. praestantissimoque viro, genero tuo, quern tecum exoptamus, nomina sedemque primariorum cognovero, vix tamen teneri potero, quin ad illos evolem Bartholomaeum tuum commendationibus onustum una cum comitibus suis in viam deduxi eique Galium utriusque linguae peritum comitem adiunxi. Eum tamen antea monui, scriptum mihi Lutetia fuisse, Regio edicto sancitum, ut peregrini omnes e regno intra certos dies demigrarent. Tanta foederis istius quinquennis fuit constantia. Verum insanire illos sinamus, dum 339

APPENDICES

spartam, quam Dei beneficio nacti sumus, tueamur. Mi praestantissime et charissime Pater, intelligo, te miris modis ad istis κρίωαν-γοκ vexari. Vindica te, quaeso, tandem aliquando in libertatem et hunc postremum aetatis tuae divinitus exactae actum omnium efficito praestantissimum. Habiturus es hac in civitate Senatum omnium clementissimum et liberalissimum, collegas et scholasticos tui observantissimos. Enitere quaeso, ut tandem istis tragoediis finis aliquis imponatur, quae tam misere Helveticas et Germanicas ecclesias disiungunt. Auctoritas apud Principes nominis tui permagna est; in te uno secundum Deum posita haec spes est. Incumbe igitur in hoc negotium, ut facis, et priusquam ad patris coelestis complexum conscendas, hoc illi ofScium praestato. nihil in istiusmodi hominibus aeque mihi displicet, quam quod universam suam religionem hac sola in re collocant. Dissentiat aliquis, quamvis integre et sancte partes omnes caeteras religionis colat, anathema est. Contra, qui consentiat, omnibus cius flagitiis connivetur. Genevensis ecclesiola, unde innumeri quotidie martyres in Gallia nascuntur, pro exsecrabili sentina numeratur. Quod ego, nisi verissimum vel nuper magno in negotio exploratum habuissem, non scriberem. Sed hie dolor meum animum exulcerat. nam multis in locis Galliae nocturni piorum conventus, seminaria martyrum redundantia, disciplinam ex ilia ecclesiola suam hauserunt. Te igitur, venerande et observande pater, per sanguinem D n l nostri Jesu Christi, cui tu tam diu fidehter ac fortiter inserviisti, obsecro atque obtestor, ut his malis remedium aliquod primo quoque tem­ pore, quoad poteris, adhibeas et earn viam, quam puto esse compendiariam, te scilicet in libertatem vindicandi, ineas. Mi colendissime ac venerande pater, vale meque tuis in precibus commendatum habeto. Uxor et filioli duo tuam Amplitudinem reverenter salutant. Si verum est, quod ilia suspicantur, spero me non modo in te patrem, verum etiam compatrem habiturum. Iterum vale et salve cum excellentissimo domino, genero tuo, atque universa familia. Argentorati. XII Cal. Febr. 1557. 340

APPENDICES

III. Venerando Patri ac domino Do. Philippo Melanthoni domino et parenti meo magnopere observando Hotomannus S.D. Superioribus diebus scripsi tibi venerande pater quanta tyrannide et crudelitate cardinalis Lotaringus in ecclesiis nostris disripandis usus esse dedique binas ad te literas, ei quern domino a Lasco Polonus hue miserat. Nunc etiam confessionem errundem ecclesiarum tibi mitto, quam nuper edere coacti sumque impiam adversariorum calumniam, qui nostros eo crimine apud principes imperii accusant, quod non tantum putant, sed etiam intelligunt esse quam invidiosissimum, male scilicet et impie de veritate coenae dominicae entire: cum tamen diserte in confessione ascripserint veram carnis et sanguioris domini substantiam nobis exhibere. Reperti etiam sunt Germani studiosi complures pictaviis qui minus hostiliter quam isti papistae, ecclesiam nostram eo nomine persecuti sunt, quam res mirandum in modum animos adversariorum auxit / neque finem aut remedium ilium tanti mali videmque nisi auctoritate tua compescuntur quare petiimus ab hoc amico nostro, viro nobile et pio ut hanc confessione nostram tibi exhiberet, teque omnium nostrum nomine rogaret, ut earn istic edendam curares, cum brevi aliqua praefatiuncula tuo nomine insignata, qua putatem et religionem illarum ecclesiarum commendares. Peto abs te venerande pater per tuam in Christum filium Dei pietatem, per singulare tuum in ecclesiam eique studium atque benevolentiam, ut nobis in hac re gratificari velis quod ei feceris spondeo fore, ut communes ab omnibus accidentis nostris patris pro te et familia tua usi versa, vestraque turn ecclesiam turn etiam academia fiant: tibique gratiae ab ipsis habeantur. Novae quae nunc habemus ex hoc eodem melius intelliges. Cum principes quos sanguinis regii nominamus petitum essent ex antiquis regni institutis, ut rei ordines constatus appellant cogerentur: et ab us de regni administratione statueretur, 341

APPENDICES

quin rex qui decimo decimum Februarii die XVI aetatis annum complebit, nondum per aetatem illud potest regere, edictum est si qui mentionem eius rei facere audeat, ut pro perduellio ne damnetur. Videt N. Guisiani que iam tyrannidem occuparunt, fore ut ad Vindocimensem familiam res txansferatur. Sed cum haec, ut dixi, turn caetera omnia existo quern tibi misimque planus cognosces. Vale pater observantissime et salve. Argent. Cal. ipsius Jan. Do. Peucero viro clarissimo et singulari seculi nostri ornamento plurimam salutem presor. Oro etiam eum ut apud te deprecator noster esse velit. Iterum vale. Hotomannus tuus

*

342

A P P E N D I X IV. L E T T E R FROM H O T M A N TO PETER MARTYR, 2ONOVEMBER

1560*

Clarissime et prudentissime viro D. Petro Martyri, sanctae theologie doctori praestantissimo et parenti meo magnopere observando, Tiguri, Hotomannus S. D. Observande pater, reversus ex diuturna et periculosa peregrinatione literas tuas amantissimas reperi, quibus ita respondere volui, ut simul quidquid novi ex Gallia afferrem addendum putarem. Quo igitur in statu Galliam nostram reliquerim breviter perscriptum habes. Beza et ego satis maesti a Navarro discessimus octobris die XVII. quid postea contigerit prorsus ignoro, nisi quod quidam Metenses confirmant Navarrum ex Condensem salvos et incolumes in aula vivere. Quod si verum est non possum non optime de Gallia nostra sperare. D. Bullingero nihil in praesentia possum scribere, praesertim cum ilia quae scribo communiter utrique vestrum a me mittantur. Peto abs te ut veneram dum ilium senem et parentem meum observantissimum una cum clarissimo viro D. Francisco Betio et ceteris amicis honorifice meo nomine salutes. Vale vir spectantissime et parens colendissime. Dominus te et familiam universam conservet. Filiolum meum Danuelem puerum insignem dum abessem amisi, quo nihil mihi molestius accidere potuit. Theages tuis ingenio ex memoria pollet. Mihi nonnihil ejus pollicetur. Deus omnes conservet. Amen. Argentorati XX Novembris 1560. 'Zurich SA, E.II.350a, f. 86or.

343

A P P E N D I X V.

I N S T R U C T I O N S OF JACQUES

D ' A N G E N N E S , S I E U R DE R A M B O U I L L E T , A M B A S S A D O R OF F R A N C E TO T H E P R I N C E S OF G E R M A N Y *

Extraict de l'instruction baillee par le Roy a Monsieur de Rambouillet allant vers les Princes de la Germanie 1561. II passera par Strasbourg ou il fera venir pardevers lui le docteur Hotomanus, et apres luy a voir faict entendre l'asseurance que le Roy et la Reine sa mere ont prise de l'affection et bonne volonte qu'il monstre avoir au service de cette couronne, lui baillera sa lettre de retenue avec une demie annee de sa pension qu'il luy porte, et le menera quant et lui par tout son voyage tant pour luy servir de truchement, que pour ce que estant led [ict] docteur ayme et estime de la pluspart desd[icts] Princes, il ne luy servira de peu au faict de sad [ict] negotiation delaquelle led [ict] Sr de Rambouillet lui fera bien entendre ce qu'il a de charge pour l'amiable visitation desdficts] Princes. Et pour le faict dud [ict] Concile,—mais non ce qui regarde la susdicte ligue deffensive, si ce n'est que parmy leurs discours, il veist qu'il vint a propos de luy en parler co[mm]e chose dont il se seroit inopinement advise, et sur laquelle il seroit bien ayse d'entendre son advis. Et si d'adventure ledict docteur s'offroit de lui mesmes d'y faire quelque bon office en esperant d'y persuader lesdficts] Princes, et faire en sorte qu'ils fussent les premiers a en parler, et rechercher led [ict] Sr de Rambouillet, il s'en re* Paris BPF, 10, f. 381.

344

APPENDICES mettera a luy, et luy dira sentence que pendant qu'il sera pardela, il aura toutes I'oreille ouverte pour ouir ce que lui sera propose a l'utilito desd[icts] Princes et a commune et grande conservation pour a son retour en faire fidelle rapport.

345

APPENDIX VI.

G E N E V A N O A T H OF

CITIZENSHIP* FORME DU SERMENT DE BOURGEOIS

Premierement de vivre selon la reformation et mode de vivre ordone selon levangile de Dieu, et destre bon et loial a la cite de Geneve. Item destre obeissant a messeigneurs et leurs ofEciers. Dobserver et garder les libertes, franchises, coustumes, edictz, statutz et ordonances de la cite. De contribuer aux ordonances et edictz qui seront faictz a lutilite et ayde dicelle. De venir en conseil quant vous y seres demande. De bien et loiaulment conseiller. De tenir secret tout ce qui sera diet es conseil. De reveler a mes [diets] Srs tout ce qui pourroit estre contraire a la cite. De pourchasser le bien honneur et profit dicelle. Destre fourni et assorty darmes pour la defense de la cite selon vostre pouvoir. Dacheter maisons, possessions, pres et vignons dedans les franchises de la cite selon vre faculte. De ne mener marchandise estrange a vre nom pour la defrauder. De ne labsenter en temps de necessite. De ne sortir dicelle pour aller habiter ailleurs sans license. Finalement de ne faire ne souffrir estre faictes aucunes prattiques, machinations ou entreprises contre la sancte reformation evangelique tenues es ceste cite ny contre le magistrat, republique, libertes, edictz et statuts dicelle, mays le tout incontinant decouvrir, reveler et rapporter a mesd[icts] seigneurs quand vous laures aperceu. * Geneva AE, RC, Vol. 68. 346

SOURCES "No mortal can follow that handwriting." Jean Hotman on his father's literary remains

THIS BIOGRAPHY is based largely upon primary sources, in­ cluding contemporary documents and narrative accounts bearing upon Hotman's career and immediate environment, upon his published works, and especially upon his more than 500 letters, more than half unpublished, which I have collected and calendared. I have made extensive use, too, of the many pamphlets, mostly anonymous, of the period listed in the catalogues of the Bibliotheque Nationale, the Arsenal (MS, 8° Η. 12868 1 9 ), and in Lindsay's and Neu's extremely useful bibliography covering libraries in this country. I have not inflated my notes with references to such standard authors as De Thou, La Popeliniere, La Place, La Planche, and the various memorialists of the six­ teenth century; nor have I recorded all my wanderings through the vast fields of Reformationsforschung. In place of this let me simply pay a general tribute to the indispensa­ ble work (to mention the most relevant) of the brothers Haag, Charles Schmidt, J. F. Baum, Η. M. Baird, Jean Barnaud, Emile Doumergue, Hippolyte Aubert, Henri Naef, Jules le Coultre, Henri Vuilleumier, Henri Meylan, P.-F. Geisendorf, Alain Dufour, and Robert Kingdon—au­ thors who have all, in terms at least of scholarly commit­ ment, helped to preserve the coherence and continuity of the Calvinist tradition and, following Simon Goulart, Theo­ dore Beza, and Calvin himself, to write its history. T o this tradition the present offering is very much that of a layman, if not of a heretic. More special mention must be made of one man who was not only an authority on several branches of legal history but also the greatest of all Hotman scholars. Rodolphe

347

SOURCES Dareste spent over half a century on Hotman's trail, reconstructing parts of his career, uncovering many letters (the transcripts he had made are in Paris BPF, MS 91, in 5 dossiers). It is unfortunate, though understandable, that he decided not to present the Latin texts (which he found more difficult to establish than the Greek inscriptions he published) but only French translations, often abridged and not without errors. Nevertheless his articles—published in Revue historique, II (1867), 1-59, and 367-435, and XCVII (1908), 297-315 (from Ehinger's text), and BSHPF, XXV (1876), 529-44—are invaluable as a guide. It is more unfortunate that Dareste's only attempt at a general biography came at the very beginning of his studies (Paris, 1850), and that the sequence of discoveries prevented him from assembling a final assessment. But this circumstance, and the fact that more material has subsequently come to light, help to justify this book. (It may be noted that another attempt to present Hotman's correspondence was begun—perhaps by Edouard Rott?—but did not get beyond the stage of collected transcripts, which were acquired a few years ago by the Bibliotheque Publique of Neuchatel.) There have been many discussions of Hotman's political ideas, but aside from a handful of articles (notably those of Pierre Mesnard, Jacques Pannier, David Baird Smith, and Henri Vuilleumier, referred to in the notes), there have been no significant contributions to our understanding of the man and his work until very recently. At present there seems to be a revival of interest in Hotmaniana in the making, especially in this country. Julian H. Franklin has recently published an abridged modern translation with commentary of the Franco-Gallia, while Ralph E. Giesey and J.H.M. Salmon have published a variorum edition with English translation (Cambridge, 1972). Mme. A. H. SaintCharmaran has recently completed a thesis on Hotman's works at the University of Paris. I have also discussed certain aspects of Hotman's thought in Foundations of Mod348

SOURCES ern Historical Scholarship (New York, 1970). In preparation, too, is a volume by Giesey and myself of Hotman's works, letters, and manuscripts. Much fuller bibliographical and documentary information will be given there as well as the calendar of letters on which the present work is based. ABBREVIATIONS FOR MAJOR PUBLISHED SOURCES

ACF Alberi BSHPF Beza

Bezold

Archives curieuses de I'histoire de France, ed. L. Qmber and F. Danjou. Paris, 1834; 15 vols. Eugene Alberi (ed.). Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato. Florence, 1839-63; 15 vols. Bulletin de la Societe de I'histoire du protestantisme frangais. Theodore de Beze. Correspondance, ed. H. Aubert, F. Aubert, H. Meylan, A. Dufour, A. de Henseler. Geneva, 196070; 6 vols. F. von Bezold (ed.). Briefe des Pfalzgrafen Johann Casimirs. Munich, 1882-1903; 3 vols.

Blok

P. J. Blok (ed.). Correspondance de Franpois Hotman. Archives du Musee Teyler, ser. 2, 2e partie. Haarlem, 1911.

Bulaeus CR CSP Crespin

C. E. Bulaeus. Historia Universitatis Parisiensis. Paris, 1673; 6 vols. Corpus Reformatorum. Calvini opera, XXXVIII-XLVHI. Thesaurus epistolici Calviniani. Braunschweig, 1872-79. Calendar of State Papers. Jean Crespin and Simon Goulart. Histoire des martyrs, ed. D. Benoit. Toulouse, 1885-89; 3 vols. 349

SOURCES Desjardins

Ehinger

Ep La Ferriere

Fournier

Gillet HE

Haag

Hummel Isambert

Kausler and Schott

350

Abel Desjardins (ed.). Negotiations diplomatiques de la France avec la Toscane, II. Paris, 1865. Ludwig Ehinger. Franz Hotmann, ein franzosischer Gelehrter, Staatsmann und Publicist des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Beitrage zur vaterlandischen Geschichte, XIV. Basel, 1896. "Anhang." Epistolae (see works of Hotman following). H. de la Ferriere and Baguenault de Puchesse (eds.). Les Lettres de Catherine de Medicis. Paris, 1880-1909; 10 vols. Marcel Fournier (ed.). Les Statutes et privileges des universites frangaises, IV. UUniversite de Strasbourg. Paris, 1894. J.F.A. Gillet. Crato von Crafftsheim und seine Freunde. Frankfurt, i860; 2 vols. Histoire ecclesiastique des eglises reformees au royaume de France, ed. Baum and Cunitz. Paris, 1883; 3 v °l s · Eugene and Emile Haag (eds.). La France Protestante. Paris, 1846-58; 10 vols. 2nd edn., Paris, 1877-88; 6 vols. B. F. Hummel. Celebriwm virorum . . . epistolae ineditae. Nurnberg, 1777. Isambert, Decrusy, Taillandier (eds.). Recueil general des anciennes lots franpaises. Paris, 1829; 29 vols. E. von Kausler and T. Schott (eds.). Briefivechsel zivischen Christoph, Herzog von Wurttemberg und Petrus Paulus Vergerius. Tubingen, 1875.

Kluckhohn

SOURCES August Kluckhohn (ed.). Briefe Friedrich des Frommen. Braunschweig, 1868-70; 2 vols.

LN L'Estoile MC ME ML Mornay Op Pasquier RHDFE Ribier Rott

Robert O. Lindsay and John Neu. French Political Pamphlets 1547-164.8. Madison, 1969. Pierre de L'Estoile. Journal pour le regne de Henri III (1574-1589), ed. L. Lefevre. Paris, 1943. Memoires de Conde. London, 1743; 6 vols. Memoires de VEstat de France, sous Charles neufiesme, ed. Simon Goulart. Meidelburg, 1578; 6 vols. Memoires de la ligue. Amsterdam, 1758; 6 vols. Philippe du Pleissis Mornay, Memoires et Correspondance. Paris, 1824. Opera (see works of Hotman following). Etienne Pasquier. Les Lettres. Paris, 1622; 2 vols. Also critical editions by D. Thickett. Geneva, 1956, 1966. Revue historique du droit frangais et Stranger. Guillaume Ribier (ed.). Lettres et memoires d'estat. Paris, 1666; 2 vols. Edouard Rott, Histoire de la representation diplomatique de la France aupres des cantons Suisses, II. Bern, 1902.

MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

Basel UB Berlin

Basel, Universitatsbibliothek, bachkorrespondenz Berlin, Stiftung Preussischer besitz

AmerKultur351

SOURCES

Bern SA Bern SB Breslau Chantilly Darmstadt HSA Geneva AE RC Geneva BPU Geneva MHR Gotha Haarlem MT Leiden London BM London PRO Madrid BN Marburg PA Montbeliard Neuchatel Oxford BL Paris AN Paris Ars Paris BN Fr. Lat. Dupuy Paris BPF Paris BSG Strasbourg AST 352

Bern, Staatsarchiv Bern, Staatsbibliothek Wrotslaw, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka Chantilly, Musee de Conde Darmstadt, Hessisches Staatsarchiv Geneva, Archives d'Etat Registres du Conseil Geneva, Bibliotheque publique et universitaire Geneva, Musee Historique de la Refor­ mation Gotha Landesbibliothek (in CR) Haarlem, Musee Teyler, "Hottomanniana" Leiden, Universiteits Bibliotheek London, British Museum London, Public Record Office Madrid, Biblioteca nacionale Marburg, Politisches Archiv Philipps von Hessen Montbeliard, Bibliotheque publique Neuchatel, Bibliotheque Publique de la Ville Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tanner Collection Paris, Archives Nationales Paris, Bibliotheque de Γ Arsenal Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Departement des manuscrits Fonds francais Fonds Latins Collection Dupuy Paris, Bibliotheque Historique du Protestantisme Francais Paris, Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve Strasbourg, Archives du Chapitre de St.-Thomas

SOURCES Stuttgart HSA Zurich SA Zurich ZB

Stuttgart, Hauptsstaatsarchiv Zurich, Staatsarchiv Zurich, Zentralbibliothek

HOTMAN'S PUBLISHED WORKS COLLECTIONS

Opera: Operum tomus primus, secundus, tertius. Geneva, 1599-1600 Opuscules francoises des Hotmans. Paris, 1616; 1617 Epistolae. Amsterdam, 1700 CHRONOLOGY

**trans. Homeri Batrachomyomachia Paris, 1543 Tabulae aliquot de criminibus, puniendisque fonribus et temporandis supliciis secundum atrocitatem et aestimationem scelerem. Paris, 1543 De Gradibus cognationis et affinitatis libri duo. Paris, 1547; Strasbourg, 1556 In Tractatus de actionibus ex libro institutionum iuris quarto. Lyon, 1548; Basel, 1559 (Novus commentarius . . .) •trans. Calvin, Admonitio . . . contra astrologiam, quam iudiciariam vocant. Geneva, 1549 *trans. Plato, Apologie pour Socrate. Lyon, 1549 ed. Asconius Pedianus, Commentationes in aliquot orationes M. Tulii Ciceronis. Lyon, 1551 * = anonymous or pseudonymous ·* = attributed italics = standard short title

353

SOURCES De Usuris libri duo. Lyon, 1551 *De Statu primitivae ecclesiae eiusque sacerdotiis . . . ad Remundum Rufum defensorem pontificiis R. adversus Carolum Molinaeum iurisconsultum. Geneva, 1553; 1554 trans. Justinian, Digestum vetus. Lyon, 1553; 1557 trans. Justinian, Codicis . . . libri novem priores. Lyon, 1553; 1557 Commentariorum in orationes M. T . Ciceronis volumen primum (-tertium) Paris, 1554 (Lyon, 1570); Antwerp, 1584-86; etc. Africanus sive interpretatio 1. frater a fratre, D. de condict. indeb. Strasbourg, 1555; etc. Paris, 1573 ( . . . vetus renovata disputatio . . . ) ; etc. Justiniani imperatoris vita. Strasbourg, 1556; etc. Observationum pandectarum c. xx. Strasbourg, 1556 ed. François Connan, Commentariorum juris civilis libri decem. Basel, 1557; Paris, 1558; etc. De Legibus populi Romani liber. Basel, 1557; 1558 (LegumRomanarum index); etc. In Theophili institutiones notae. Lyon, 1557; 1558; 1565 Ctfwzmentarius verborum juris, antiquitatum Ro. elementis amplificatus. (De magistratibus, De legibus, De jurisconsultis, De senatu et S. C., De formulis, De comitiis) Basel, 1558; 1563 (Novus commentarius . . .); Venice, 1564; Lyon, 1569 Jurisconsultus, sive de optimo genere juris interpretandi. Basel, 1559; Lyon, 1566; Geneva, 1589; etc. Commentarius in quatuor libros institutionxxm [es] juris civilis. 354

SOURCES Basel, 1560; Lyon, 1567; Venice, 1569; Basel, 1569; Lyon, 1588,1607 Partitiones iuris civilis elementariae. Basel, 1560; 1561; Lyon, 1565; Basel, 1571; 1581; Geneva, 1589 Observationum [es] liber primus (secundus, III, IIII, quinctus, libri I X ) . Basel, 1560; 1561; 1574; 1575; 1577; Geneva, 1589 •Epistre envoiee au tigre de la France. N.p., 1560 **Tumultus Ambosianus . . . qui nuper in Gallia . . . propter Guysiorum principum gubernationem a nobilitate Gallica excitatus est. N.p., 1560 **La Tumulte d'Amboise.... N.p., 1560 Epistola ad Balduinum. (In Calvin, Responsio ad Balduini convicia.) N.p., 1562 M. T . Gceronis Epistola ad Q. Fratrem Asiae praetorem: De Provincia recte administranda, et in earn . . . commentarius [in epistolam Ciceronis]. Lyon, 1564; etc. De Legibus XII tabularum tripartita . . . commentatio. Lyon, 1564 In sex leges obscurcissimas commentarius ex scholis Valentini. Lyon, 1564 Commentarius in duos Digestorum tractatus obscurcissimos. [De Testamentis], Lyon, 1564; Geneva, 1593 De Eo quod interest. Lyon, 1564; Hanover, 1599 De Mora. Lyon, 1564; Hanover, 1599 De Sacramento coenae christianae modesta disputatio. (1565) Hagae-comitis, 1635 355

SOURCES *Antitribonian ou discours d'un grand et renomme Iurisconsulte de nostre temps. Sur l'estude des loix. Fait par l'advis de feu Monsieur de l'Hospital Chancelier de France en l'an 1567. Paris, 1603; etc. Disputatio in C. Raynutius, ext. de testam. Bourges, 1567 Variarum Disputationam[es] volumen: de quarta falcidiana, de quarta legitimaria, de quarta pegasiana, de spuriis, de donationibus, de dotibus, de pactis, de eo quod interest, de mora, de usuris, de gradibus cognationis. Lyon, 1569 Dialecticae institutionum[es] libri IIII. Geneva, 1573; Frankfurt, 1586; Geneva, 1593 De Feudis commentatio tripertita, hoc est: disputatio de jure feudali, commentarius in usus feudorum, dictionarium verborum feudalium. Lyon, 1573; Cologne, 1573; 1574; etc. *De Furoribus gallicis, horrenda et indigna admiralii Castillionei, nobilium atque illustrium caede, scelerata ac inaudita piorum strage passim edita per complures Galliae civitates, sine ullo discrimine generis, sexus, aetatis et conditione hominum, vera et simplex narratio, Ernesto Varamundo, Frisio, auctore. Edinburgh (i.e., Basel) 1573; London, 1573; etc. Francogallia. Geneva, 1573; Cologne, 1574; 1576; Frankfurt, 1586; etc. Quaestionxim[es] illustn\im[es] liber. Geneva, 1573; 1576; Lyon, 1579; Geneva, 1585; 1591; Hanover, 1595; etc. ed. & com. Caesar, De Bello Gallico. Lyon, 1574; Frankfurt, 1575; Lyon, 1581; Frankfurt, 1584; etc. **trans. Camillo Capilupi, ho Stratagema di Carlo IX. re di Francia contro gli Ugonotti ribelli. . . . Ce stra356

SOURCES tageme est cy apres mis en Francois avec un avertissement au lecteur. N.p., 1574 Cowzmentarius in tit. Cod. de usufructis. Basel, 1575 Cowzmentarius in titt. Cod. de pactis et de transactionibus. Geneva, 1575 Conjectura de perscriptis verbis. Geneva, 1575 •Gasparis Colinii Castellonii, magni quondam Franciae amiralii vita. N.p., 1575; etc. •Matagonis de Matagonibus, decretorum bacalaurai, Monitoriale adversus Italogalliam sive antifrancogalliam Antonii Matharelli Alvergeni. N.p., 1575; 1578; 1593 *Strigilis Papirii Massoni sive remediale charitativum contra rabiosam frenesim Papirii Massoni Jesuitae excucullati: per Matagonis de Matagonibus. N.p., 1575; 1578; 1593 In tit. Cod. de judiciis commentarius. Basel, 1576 Cowanentarius juris civilis lib XXII ad tit. Dig. de usuris. Basel, 1576 Cozwmentationum in jus civile libri XVIII et XIX cum parte XXI. Lyon, 1576 Cowmientarius in tt. Digestor. et Codic. de pignoribus et hypothecis. Basel, 1576 Cowzmentationum in jus civile libri sex. De rebus creditis et varus contractus. Lyon, 1577 Consilioram[a] volumen primum. Geneva, 1578; 1586 De undecimistri partu et de sui heredis appellatione. Basel, 1579 357

SOURCES Disputatio de aureo Justianico. Adversus quandam observationum de Justiniani aurei aestimationem. Basel, 1584; Geneva, 1585; 1589 De Re numaria populi Romani liber. Geneva, 1585; 1589 Disputatio de controversia successioms regiae inter patrum et fratris praemortui filium. Frankfurt, 1585; Geneva, 1586 ed. Jean de Terre-Rouge, De Jure legitimi successoris in hereditate regni Galliae. Frankfurt, 1585 Observationes quae ad nuptiarum ritum pertinent, liber singularis. N.p., 1585; etc. *Brutum fulmen papae Sixti V adversus Henricum sereniss. regem Navarrae, et illustrissimum Henricum Borbonium, principem Condaeum. Una cum protestatione multiplicis nullitatis. N.p., 1586; n.p.n.d.; etc. **trans. Galeacii Cariaccioli Vici Narchionis vita. (1587) n.p.n.d. De Jure successioms regiae in regno Francorum leges aliquot. N.p., 1588 *Ad Tractatum M. Zampini... de successione praerogativae primi principis Franciae . . . responsio. Frankfurt, 1589 Responsionum[es] amicabilium[es] libri duo. Geneva, 1589; Hanover, 1601; 1611 Tractatus de dote solemnes et singularis quatuor. Cologne, 1591 Consolatio e sacris litteris petita. Geneva, 1593; Lyon, 1593; Hanover, 1613 De donationibus, octavi libri Codicis scholae, opus posthumum. Geneva, 1593 358

SOURCES Scholae in duos titulos XVIII lib. Digestorum de testamentis. Geneva, 1593 De Castis incestisve nuptiis disputatio. Basel, 1594; Lyon, 1594; Frankfurt, 1619 Scholae in duos titulos Digestorum de pactis et transactionum opus posthumum. Geneva, 1594 Libellus de spuriis et legitimatione. Lyon, 1594

359

INDEX Accursius, 27, 186 Acton, Lord, 231 adiaphora, 94 Adrecs, Baron d', 165 Africanus, 72, 187, 188 Alba, Duke of, 197, 198, 206, 212,

Augustine, St., 146, 200 Auneau, Battle of, 313-315 Autremont, Jacqueline d', 208, 209, 230 Aventinus, Johann, 243

235, 284 Alciato, Andrea, 24-27, 32, 184, 186, 194, 203 Alençon (and Anjou), Duke of, 250-252, 262, 264-266, 280, 284, 287, 292 Amboise, Conspiracy of, 45, 105, 107-113, 115-118, 121, 123, 124, 126, 127, 131, 137, 156, 267 Amboise, Peace of, 164 Amerbach, Basilius, 250, 252, 259, 261, 262, 264, 265, 268, 269, 276, 277, 286, 300, 303, 312, 315, 317, 320, 321, 325 Amerbach, Bonifacius, 65, 71-73, 75, 79, 80, 88, 89, 97, 158-160 Andreae, Jacob, 153, 278, 279 Angers, University of, 149, 253 Angleberme, Jean Pyrrhus d', 30 Anti-Tribonian, 192-197, 203, 240, 242 anti-Tribonianism, 188, 189, 192-197 Antoine of Navarre, xi, 104, 108, 109, 120-127, 130, 133, 135-141, 147, 151, 156-158, 161 Aragonese Oath, 246, 255 Aristotle, 17, 18, 21 Armada, Spanish, 315, 316, 329 Arrago, Guillaume, 289 Arthur, King of England, 255 Asconius Pedianus, 188 Aubelin, Guillaume d', 49 Augsburg Confession, 94, 95, 97, 103, 133, 136, 137, 140, 142, 153

Balbini, Nicolas, 312 Baldus, 26 Barbaro, Marc'Antonio, 172 Barnaud, Nicolas, 248 Baron, Eguinaire, 32, 76, 77 Barthold, 166 Bartolism, 180, 184, 185, 194, 196 Bartolus, 26, 184, 187, 194, 196 Basel, Council of, 160, 279, 283, 300 Basel, University of, 65, 89, 277, 279 Batrachomyomachia, 34 Baudouin, Francois, 29, 31-33, 36-40, 43-46, 48, 61, 71-73, 75-85, 89, 90, 94-96, 105, 115, 135-149, 165, 187-189, 191, 193, 194, 231, 251, 253, 258, 259, 326, 336, 337 Bayle, Pierre, 12 Bayonne, Conference of, 197, 235 Beatus Rhenanus, 243, 256 Beauclerc, 273 Beheme, 214, 215 Belisarius, 190 Belieforest, Francois de, 221, 233, 245, 260 Bellievre, Jean de, 248, 249, 252 Bellievre, Pomponne de, 223, 227, 230, 233, 249 Belloy, Pierre du, 301 Bern, Council of, 51-53, 60, 61, 269, 295 Berquin, Louis, 15, 17, 19 Besangon, University of, 74 Betius, Franciscus, 343 361

INDEX Beutterich, Peter, 281, 288 Beza, Theodore, xi, 22, 26, 28, 43,

Budé, Guillaume, 7, 17-22, 24-26, 29, 32, 57, 186, 193, 194 Bullinger, Heinrich, 35, 53, 62, 46, 49-53, 55, 57-62, 67, 81, 98, 101, 102, 105-107, 110, 114-116, 65, 71, 72, 79, 81, 87, 88, 91, 96, 99, 114, 126-128, 140, 143, 198, 124, 125, 130, 133, 134, 139-144, 219-221, 227-230 146, 147, 151-158, 160, 161, 173, 177, 182, 185, 198, 201, 220, Burin, Pierre, 233 222, 223, 225, 230, 232, 233, Bussy d'Amboise, 268 246, 247, 249, 254, 261, 269, 270, Buznaval, Paul Chouart, Sieur de, 287, 291, 308, 316, 318, 326, 295 329, 331, 343 Caesar, 188, 204, 240, 244 Biron, Marshal de, 202, 229 Calvin, vii, x, xi, 7, 17-20, 22, 23, Blois, Estates General of, 265 Bodin, Jean, 260, 299 Boleyn, Anne, 64 Bologna, University of, 194 Bolsec, Jerome, 60 Boni, Carlo, 253 Bonne, Massacre at, 320, 321 Bonncfoy, Ennemond, 224, 273 Boquin, Louis, 78, 82, 135, 140 Borromeo League, 308 Bougier, Fran$ois, 203 Bourbon (family), 107, 114, 115 Bourbon, Antoinette de, 155 Bourbon, Cardinal of, 64, 294, 296, 297, 299, 301 Bourbon, Charles of, 10, 11 Bourges, University of, 24-26, 32, 37, 38, 44, 76-78, 143, 144, 179, 181, 182, 184, 191, 192, 202, 203, 208, 217, 218, 262, 282 Brandenburg, Elector of, 150 Brandt, Bernhard, 88 Brenz, Johann, 152, 153 Bricquet, Pierre, 42 Brisson, Barnabe, 89 Brule, Pierr.e, 179 Brully, Pierre, 36 Brunhild, 242 Brutum Fulmen, 303-306 Bucer, Martin, 7, 26, 143, 145 Bude (family), 19, 40, 44, 46, 58 Bude, François, 101 362

25, 28, 35, 37-41, 43-50, 52-54, 56, 58-62, 65-67, 69, 71, 73, 76-84, 86, 90, 94-98, 101, 103-110, 113-115, 121, 123-125, 130, 133, 134, 136, 139-148, 154, 155, 168, 173, 174, 187, 203, 225, 269, 270, 286, 333, 338 Camerarius, Johann, 88, 320 Canisius, Peter, 96, 170 canon law, 68, 81, 186, 305, 306 Capet, Hugues, 116, 119 Capilupi, Camillo, 234 Cappell, Jacques, 252, 254, 259, 273 Caracciolo, Galeazzo, 312 Casaubon, Isaac, 311 Cassander, George, 134-136, 138, 141-143, 251 Castellio, Sebastian, 60, 71, 81, '35. 145. 147 Castelnau, Michel de, 176 Catherine de Medicis, 105, 119, 120, 126, 128, 130-135, 138, 140, 149-152, 156, 161-163, 167, 170, 175-178, 197, 198, 202, 206-209, 211, 213, 214, 220, 223, 231, 2

3 5 ' 2 3 7 . 2 4 2 . 2 49. 2 53, 255> 2 2 53i 256, 258, 277 324 Curione, Celio Secundo, 56, 72 Clement VIII, 330 Damville, Henri de Clermont, College of, 253 Montmorency, 252, 261, 268 Clovis, 266 D'Andelot, Francois, 126, 157, Coligny, Gaspard de, 106, 112, 159, 162, 163, 165, 197, 202 122, 126-128, 131, 133, 157, 159, Dathenus, Peter, 265, 282 161-163, 165, 166, 176, 197-199. David, Nicolas, 267 201, 202, 205-217, 229, 233, Desire, Artus, 233 234, 251 Dialecticae Institutiones, 57, 223 Colinii Vita, 230, 235 Dohna, Fabian von, 282, 313, 314, College Royal, 20, 21 3*7 Com. in Institutiones, 191 Dole, University of, 73 Com. Verborum Juris, 187 Dolet, Etienne, 1$, 16, 40 Commines, Philippe de, 217

Chambre Ardente, 40, 42, 65, 67 Chandieu, Antoine de la Roche, 114, 132, 222, 291, 310, 314 Chantonney, Thomas de, 134 Charlemagne, 116, 119, 267 Charles V (Emperor), 3-5, 11, 13, 18, 28, 36, 37, 69, 74, 91, 104,

363

INDEX Donation of Constantine, 305 Donatists, 146 Doneau, Hugues, 77, 78, 203, 218, 222, 233, 234, 277, 278 Dreux, Battle of, 164 D u Bourg, Anne, 28, 103, 105, 107, 110, 153, 208 D u Haillan, Bernard, 240 Dumoulin, Charles, 29-33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 45, 61, 62, 64-75, 78-83, 90, 103, 125, 147, 149, 151, 170, 171, 187, 195, 196, 203, 216, 241, 243, 253, 260, 305, 332 D u Plessis, College, 21 D u Tillet, Jean, 63, 108, 117, 118, 122, 195, 199, 240, 332 Edward V I , 92 Ehem, Christoph, 282 Egmont, Count, 198 Elizabeth I, 92, 93, 106, 109, 127, 136, 148, 150, 161, 163, 164, 274, 281, 283, 287 Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, 230, 249, 252, 275, 287, 288, 301, 306, 307 Engelbert, Duke of Cleves, 12 Episcopius, Eusebius, 88, 89 Episcopius, Nicolas, 88 Erasmus, Desiderius, 7, 14, 17-20, 22, 24, 26, 56, 81, 142, 324 Espence, Claude d', 135 Estates General, 115, 117, 118, 122, 126, 240, 245-247, 250, 251, 255, 259, 265, 299 Este, Anne d', 155 Estienne, Henri, 236, 238, 248, 258, 268, 287, 310 Estienne, Robert, 40, 58 Fabricius, Gabriel, 147 Fabricius, Michael, 147 Falais, M . de, 37 Farel, Guillaume, 14, 48, 53, 101, 169 364

Fauchet, Claude de, 240 Favre, Antoine, 238 Feret, 16 Ferinarius, 275 Ferrier, Arnaud du, 296-298 Fetherstone, Christopher, 304 feudal law, 30, 32, 196, 203, 204, 243, 246, 248 Feudis, De, 192, 204, 240 Flaccius Illyricus, Matthaeus, 91, 95. 96 Florentine Codex, 188, 193, 194 Foix, Paul de, 135-137 Formula of Concord, 278, 279, 282, 329 Francis I, 3, 5, 8-10, 12-16, 18-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 37 Francis II, 104, 107, 114, 116-119, 125 Franco-Gallia, ix, 192, 204, 224, 238-260, 275, 282, 296, 298, 299, 3°4. 323 Frankfurt, Colloquy of, 95, 136 Frankfurt, Diet of, 163 Frederick III, Elector Palatine, xi, 103, 105, 107, h i , i2i, 123, I2 7 . I 3 5 " I 3 7 . '39. ! 5 ° . 162, 164, 168, 221, 239, 261, 265, 270, 274, 276, 282 Frederick I V , Elector Palatine, 283 fundamental laws, 299, 315 Furoribus Gallicis, De, 220, 230, 2 35. 249 Gallars, Nicolas de, 134 Gallicanism, 31, 36, 63, 64, 74, 83. 33i, 332 Geneva, Council of, 124, 220-222, 224, 248, 249, 261, 270, 275, 311, 346 Geneva, University of, 221, 222, 269-274, 311 Genlis, Jean de, 206, 207, 212, 218

INDEX Gentillet, Innocent, 238, 257 George of Hesse, 243, 264-267, 274, 279, 281 George of Montbéliard, 70, 73, 75 Gesner, Conrad, 56 Gibbon, Edward, 192, 193 Goodman, Christopher, 93 Gordes, Seigneur de, 180 Goulart, 234, 259, 319 Gousté, Claude, 135 Gradibus Cognationis, De, 39 Granvelle, Cardinal, 169, 251 Gratian, 67, 81 Gremp, Ludwig, 83, 106, 338 Grenoble, University of, 38, 180 Grindal, Edmund, 92 Grumbach, Wilhelm von, III, 124 Grynaeus, Simon, 277, 306, 313, 323, 324 Gryphius, 44, 45, 88 Gualter, Rudolph, 71, 72, 219, 229, 247, 250, 251, 259, 261, 278, 279, 283, 284, 287 Guérin, Antoine, 147 Guicciardini, 3, 5, 6, 172 Guise (family), 34, 105-107, 109-111, 113-119, 123, 126, 127, 129, 130, 133, 105-152, 154, 158, 159, 162, 165, 174, 175, 177, 207, 211, 229, 235, 264, 266, 267, 295, 296, 310, 314, 315, 342 Guise, Francis, Duke of, 99, 112, 116, 119, 128, 130, 133, 152, 154_157, 159, 164, 165, 168, 175, 176, 213, 215 Guise, Henry, Duke of, 207, 209, 211, 215, 216, 266, 294, 313, 315, 318, 319 Guitry, Jean de Chaumont, Sieur de, 282, 308, 309, 319 Haas, Herman von, 204, 205 Haller, Johann, 52, 53 Haloander, Gregory, 186, 194

Hans von Lanta, 283 Heidelberg, University of, 73, 82, 83, 85, 105, 144, 223, 273, 282, 289 Henry II, 35, 40, 58, J9, 63, 64, 69, 72, 91, 100, 102-105, 107, 114, 159, 172, 239, 245 Henry III (Henry of Anjou), 149, 150, 214, 229, 231, 237, 248-250, 252, 253, 261, 265, 266, 275, 281, 293-295, 297, 300, 302, 304, 309, 313, 314, 315-321 Henry I V (Henry of Navarre), xi, 93, 207-209, 215, 250-252, 275, 281, 282, 284, 288, 292-306, 309-311, 313, 317, 318, 320, 322, 3^3. 3 2 S, 327, 3*8, 330-333 Henry VIII (of England), 3, 13, 64 Herwagen, Johann (the younger), 88 Hesse, Tileman, 98 Holy League, 221, 266-268, 294, 300-303, 307, 315, 317, 319, 327, 33 1 Hoorne, Count, 198 Horean, Baron, 272 Hotman, Anne, 290, 325 Hotman, Antoine, 22, 301 Hotman, Charles (brother), 326 Hotman, Charles (cousin), 300, 301 Hotman, Claude (Aubelin), 49, 55, 72, 87, 180-182, 200, 219, 263, 289, 290, 317 Hotman, Daniel, 55, 262, 275, 290, 291, 310, 311, 325, 343 Hotman, Gerard, 12 Hotman, Jean (son), 54, 72, 93, 204, 274, 280, 304, 311, 315, 320, 3^5. 326 Hotman, Jeanne, 311 Hotman, Lambert, 12 Hotman, Marie, 290, 325 Hotman, Paule, 13, 80

365

INDEX Hotman, Philippe, 301 Hotman, Pierre (father), 12, 13, 23, 24, 29, 30, 42-44, 46, 47, 180, 296, 325, 338, 339 Hotman, Pierre (son), 181, 217, 275, 291 Hotman, Theages, 219, 274, 284 Hotman, Theodorula, 276, 289, 306, 321, 322, 324, 325 Hume, David, 272 Index of Prohibited Books, 135 Interim of 1548, 86, 91 Irenic Movement, 134-142, 145, 146, 148 Jagiello dynasty, 231 Jeanne d'Albret, 121, 128, 139, 165, 205, 207, 208 Jesuits, 140, 169-171, 253, 258, 259, 294, 330, 331 Johann Casimir, 261, 265, 279, 281-284, 287-290, 303, 308, 312, 313, 317, 329 Joinville, Treaty of, 294 Joupitre, Jean, 218 Julius III, 63, 64 Jure Successionis, De, 298 Jurisconsultus, 184, 185, 190, 203 Justinian, 27, 32, 189, 190, 194, 196 Justiniani Vita, 187, 189 Knollys, Henry, 163 Königsberg, University of, 83 Lainez, Diego, 140 Lange, Jean de, 126, 127 Languet, Hubert, 106, 124, 150, La Noue, F r a n ç i s de, 159, 198, 308, 309, 317 La Place, Pierre de, 115 La Renaudie, Jean du Barry, Sieur de, 58, 108-112, 117 366

La Rochefoucauld, François de, 159, 207, 219 Lasco, Johann, 341 Laurent of Normandy, 48 Lausanne, Disputation of, 51 Lausanne, University of, 49-61, 270 Le Caron, Louis, 77, 78 Le Conte, Antoine, 143, 147, 203 Lect, Jacques, 308, 311, 326 Le Douaren, François, 32, 37, 66, 75-81, 123, 139, 143, 144, 146, 147, 179, 203, 204, 241, 243, 336 Lefèvre d'Etaples, 14, 17 legal humanism, 24, 38, 71, 85, 184, 185, 188-194, '96 Legibus, De, 187 Legibus XII Tabularum, De, 189 Leicester, Earl of, 274, 304, 315 Leiden, University of, 276 Le Roux, Raymond, 67, 68, 79-81 Lesdiguieres, François, 309, 313, 314, 319 L'Estoile, Pierre de (historian), 238, 252, 253, 326 L'Estoile, Pierre de (jurist), 26, 3° L'Hommet, Martin, 112, 113 L'Hopital, Michel de, 65, 76, 78, 126, 131, 133, 135, 138, 140, 167. *75t !79, r 9 2 ' 195. I9 271

liberty of conscience, xi, 97, 172 Libna, 228 Lingelsheim, Georg Michael, 322 Lipsius, Justus, 276, 281 Livret de Strasbourg, 116, 124 Lizet, Pierre, 42, 65, 151 67, 81 Lobbet, 323 Loisel, Antoine, 180 Loriol, Pierre, 182 Lorraine, Cardinal of, 17, 99, 100-102, 104, 105, 112, 113, 116, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 128,

INDEX 131-135, 138-141, 146, 147, 149, 150, 152-154, 165, 170, 178, 197, 199, 202, 214, 215, 235-237, 253, 259, 26l, 278, 34I Louis V I , Elector Palatine, 264, 275, 293 Louis IX, 296, 297 Louis XI, 217, 246 Louis d'Orléans, 302 Louis of Hesse, 264 Louis of Nassau, 206, 207 Loyola, Ignatius, 171 Lucinge, Rene de, 307 Luneberg, Duke of, 272 Luther, Martin, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 26, 32, 35, 46, 63, 65-67, 102, 142, 153, 171, 333 Lutheranism, vii, 4, 8, 9, 17, 21, 29, 42, 43, 51, 69, 70, 73, 77, 82, 83, 91, 92, 94-102, 128, 133, 150, 151, 153, 264, 278, 282, 283, 286, 312, 329 Lyons, Martyrs of, 59, 60, 103 Machiavelli, Niccolò, 3-7, 172, 174, 175, 178, 214, 216, 217, 237, 238, 257, 258, 286, 326, 328 Machiavellism, x, 174, 197, 237-239, 251-254, 261 Magdeburg Bekenntnis, 62 Malcontents, 105, 109, 110, 114-116, 122, 159, 172, 174, 247, 250, 251 Maldonnat, Jean, 253 Maligny, Edme de, 121, 122 Marbach, Johann, 91, 97, 98, 101, 278 Marburg, University of, 72, 104, 223, 262, 275, 279 Marguerite of Navarre, 15, 76, 77 Marguerite of Savoy, 191, 198 Marguerite of Valois, 208, 284 Marie, Henri de, 65 Marot, Clement, 20 Martinengo, Francesco, 201

Martyr, Peter, 71, 78, 82, 83, 86, 92, 97, 122, 126, 127, 134, 140, 219, 229, 275, 343 martyrdom, 14, 15, 45 Marveil, Capitaine, 218 Mary of Guise, 106, 132 Mary, Queen of England, 92, 93 Masson, Papire, 149, 215, 253-259, 299, 305 Matharel, Antoine, 253-256 Maurevert, Sieur de, 210 Maurice of Hesse, 329 Maurice of Nassau, 329 Mayenne, Duke of, 319, 322 Meaux, Conspiracy of, 198 Melanchthon, Philip, 13, 16, 35, 47, 68, 82, 94-96, 98, 104, 123, 135, 136, 145, 153, 278, 338-342 Merindol, Affair of, 29, 35 Merlin, Jacques, 52, 55, 210, 211, 213, 214 Mesmes, Henri des, 27, 28, 179, 182, 183, 202 Mesnil, Baptiste, 332 Michelet, Jules, ix Mildeburg, Assembly of, 293, 302 Minard, President, 105 Monitoriale, 254-257 Montaigne, Michel de, 34, 285, 286 Montbeliard, University of, 72 Montgomery, Gabriel, 104, 159 Montluc, Blaise de, 163, 176 Montluc, Jean de, 63, 122-124, 135. I 4'> 162, ^ 5 . i 6 7 . '7'» '75. 176, 180, 181, 187, 207, 216, 231. 233 Montmorency, Anne de, 64, 129, 130, 165 Morel, Francois de, 106 Morely, Jean de, 124, 125 Morison, Richard, 92 Mornay, Philippe du Plessis, 209, 210, 295, 296, 297, 302, 303 Motley, John Lathrop, 274, 330

367

INDEX Mouy, Sieur de, 210 Mundt, Christopher, 106, 150, 161, 163, 170 Muret, Marc Antoine, 233 Nachod-Danovicz, Baron, 272 Naumberg, Diet of, 126, 136 Nemours, Duke of, 275 Nemours, Treaty of, 302, 307 Nessel, George, 156 Nevelet, Pierre, 192 Nevers, Duke of, 224 Nicodemitism, 38, 45, 80, 144 Nürnberg, Diet of, 284 Oporinus, Johann, 88 Orleans, Estates General of, 126, Orleans, University of, 24, 26-28, 30, 185 Otto Henry, Elector Palatine, 73, 82, 95, 101 Oxford University, 93, 274, 276 Pace de Beriga, Giulio, 273 Pactis, De, 249 Panvinio, Onufrio, 145 Pape, Guy, 183 Papinian, 231 Pardaillan, Jacques de Ségur, Sieur de, 293, 303 Paré, Ambrose, 210, 211, 214 Paris, University of, 18, 20-23, 26, 29, 30, 38, 39, 327 Parlement of Paris, 14, 16, 28, 30, 34, 35, 39, 42, 44, 65, 66, 78, 103, 111, 116, 117, 146, 159, 164, 171, 201, 216, 253, 254, 256, 267, 301, 327 Parma, Alexander of, 315 Partitiones, 187, 188 Pascal, Blaise, viii, 332 Pasquier, Etienne, 38, 155, 170, 171, 240, 241, 332 Paulet, Amias, 174, 280

368

Perna, Peter, 286 Peronne, Declaration of, 294, 302 Petrarch, 26 Peucer, Caspar, 342 Pfyffer, Louis, 301, 307, 316 Philip II (of Spain), 139, 149, 169, 170, 307, 315, 319, 329, 330 Philip I V , 194 Philip of Hesse, xi, 35, 65, 102, 104, 127-130, 132, 134, 139, I J O , 160, 163, 164 Pibrac, G u y du Four de, 233 Pin, Jacques du, 298 Pithou, Pierre, 180, 182, 240 Pius I V , 170 Plato, 45, 188 Platter, Felix, 44 131 Platter, Thomas, 285 Plautus, 285 Poissy, Colloquy of, 132-134, 139-142, 145, 146, 170, 172, 175 Politiques, 109, 136, 174, 175, 208, 250-252, 261, 268, 301, 328, 33°. 33 1 Poltrot, 165 Pomponius, 189, 193 Ponet, John, 93 Pontoise, Estates General of, 132 Porcius, Christopher, 183 Portien, Prince of, 166 Portus, Franciscus, 230, 232, 270 Presles, College of, 216 Prevost, Guillaume, 102, 109, 216, 219, 250 Prisbach, Wolfgang, 233, 249 Prost, Antoine, 221, 230 Quaestiones lllustres, 295 Quentin, Jean (speaker for third estate at Orleans), 126 Quentin, Jean (professor at Lausanne), 52, 55 Rabelais, Francois, 34, 57, 64, 65, 67. 76> '99. 2 5 8 .

2

7°

INDEX Ragazzoni, Girolamo, 304 Rambouillet, Jacques d'Angennes, Sieur de, 149-152, 344, 345 Ramus, Petrus, 17, 18, 20-22, 33, 52, 216, 232, 233, 270 Réaux, Antoine de Moret, Sieur de, 314 Reuber, Justus, 282, 283, 304, 312, Rhedinger, Nicolas, 274, 287 Ribit, Jean, 53, 55, 270 Rihel brothers, 88 Roaldès, François, 273 Rohan, Rene de, 159 Romorantin, Edict of, 175 Ronsard, Pierre de, 256 Roussillon, Edict of, 175 Rudolph II, 329 Russell, Francis, 92 sacramentarians, 91, 100 Sacramento coenae, De, 191 St. Andre, Church of, 92 St. Andre, Marshal, 130 St. Bartholomew, Massacre of, viii, 204-227, 230-240, 243, 251, 258, 260, 261, 271, 292, 297 St. Germain, Conspiracy of, 250, 251 St. Germain, Peace of, 202, 206, 235 St. Thomas, Church of, 85, 97, 98 Salic Law, 118 Sancy, Nicolas de Harlay, Sieur de, 309, 311, 318-320, 323 Sandys, Edwin, 92 Sarpi, Paolo, 170 Saverne, Conference of, 152-155, 278 Savonarola, Girolamo, 5, 178 Saxony, Elector of, 150, 191, 262, 274, 317, 321, 324 Schleicher, Daniel, 77 Sechelles, Jean de Poix, Sieur de, 159, 161

Servetus, Michael, 44, 59,