Portraits of the Queen Mother: Polemics, Panegyrics, Letters (Volume 35) (The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe: The Toronto Series) [Translation ed.] 0772721726, 9780772721723

Citation preview

Catherine de Médicis and Others

Portraits of the Queen Mother: Polemics, Panegyrics, Letters translation and study by

Leah L. Chang and Katherine Kong

The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe: The Toronto Series, 35

PORTRAITS OF THE QUEEN MOTHER

The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe: The Toronto Series, 35

The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe: The Toronto Series

Ser ie S ed i to r S Margaret L. King and Albert Rabil, Jr. Ser ie S ed i to r , e ng l i S h te x tS Elizabeth H. Hageman

Previous Publications in the Series Madre María Rosa Journey of Five Capuchin Nuns Edited and translated by Sarah E. Owens Volume 1, 2009 Giovan Battista Andreini Love in the Mirror: A Bilingual Edition Edited and translated by Jon R. Snyder Volume 2, 2009 Raymond de Sabanac and Simone Zanacchi Two Women of the Great Schism: The Revelations of Constance de Rabastens by Raymond de Sabanac and Life of the Blessed Ursulina of Parma by Simone Zanacchi Edited and translated by Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski and Bruce L. Venarde Volume 3, 2010 Oliva Sabuco de Nantes Barrera The True Medicine Edited and translated by Gianna Pomata Volume 4, 2010 Louise-Geneviève Gillot de Sainctonge Dramatizing Dido, Circe, and Griselda Edited and translated by Janet Levarie Smarr Volume 5, 2010

Pernette du Guillet Complete Poems: A Bilingual Edition Edited by Karen Simroth James Translated by Marta Rijn Finch Volume 6, 2010 Antonia Pulci Saints’ Lives and Bible Stories for the Stage: A Bilingual Edition Edited by Elissa B. Weaver Translated by James Wyatt Cook Volume 7, 2010 Valeria Miani Celinda, A Tragedy: A Bilingual Edition Edited by Valeria Finucci Translated by Julia Kisacky Annotated by Valeria Finucci and Julia Kisacky Volume 8, 2010 Enchanted Eloquence: Fairy Tales by Seventeenth-Century French Women Writers Edited and translated by Lewis C. Seifert and Domna C. Stanton Volume 9, 2010 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Sophie, Electress of Hanover and Queen Sophie Charlotte of Prussia Leibniz and the Two Sophies: The Philosophical Correspondence Edited and translated by Lloyd Strickland Volume 10, 2011

The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe: The Toronto Series

Ser ie S ed i to r S Margaret L. King and Albert Rabil, Jr. Ser ie S ed i to r , e ng l i S h te x tS Elizabeth H. Hageman

Previous Publications in the Series In Dialogue with the Other Voice in Sixteenth-Century Italy: Literary and Social Contexts for Women’s Writing Edited by Julie D. Campbell and Maria Galli Stampino Volume 11, 2011 Sister Giustina Niccolini The Chronicle of Le Murate Edited and translated by Saundra Weddle Volume 12, 2011 Liubov Krichevskaya No Good without Reward: Selected Writings: A Bilingual Edition Edited and translated by Brian James Baer Volume 13, 2011 Elizabeth Cooke Hoby Russell The Writings of an English Sappho Edited by Patricia Phillippy With translations by Jaime Goodrich Volume 14, 2011 Lucrezia Marinella Exhortations to Women and to Others if They Please Edited and translated by Laura Benedetti Volume 15, 2012

Margherita Datini Letters to Francesco Datini Translated by Carolyn James and Antonio Pagliaro Volume 16, 2012 Delarivier Manley and Mary Pix English Women Staging Islam, 1696–1707 Edited and introduced by Bernadette Andrea Volume 17, 2012 Cecilia Del Nacimiento Journeys of a Mystic Soul in Poetry and Prose Introduction and prose translations by Kevin Donnelly Poetry translations by Sandra Sider Volume 18, 2012 Lady Margaret Douglas and Others The Devonshire Manuscript: A Women’s Book of Courtly Poetry Edited and introduced by Elizabeth Heale Volume 19, 2012 Arcangela Tarabotti Letters Familiar and Formal Edited and translated by Meredith K. Ray and Lynn Lara Westwater Volume 20, 2012

The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe: The Toronto Series

Ser ie S ed i to r S Margaret L. King and Albert Rabil, Jr. Ser ie S ed i to r , e ng l i S h te x tS Elizabeth H. Hageman

Previous Publications in the Series Pere Torrellas and Juan de Flores Three Spanish Querelle Texts: Grisel and Mirabella, The Slander against Women, and The Defense of Ladies against Slanderers: A Bilingual Edition and Study Edited and translated by Emily C. Francomano Volume 21, 2013 Barbara Torelli Benedetti Partenia, a Pastoral Play: A Bilingual Edition Edited and translated by Lisa Sampson and Barbara Burgess-Van Aken Volume 22, 2013 François Rousset, Jean Liebault, Jacques Guillemeau, Jacques Duval and Louis De Serres Pregnancy and Birth in Early Modern France: Treatises by Caring Physicians and Surgeons (1581–1625) Edited and translated by Valerie WorthStylianou Volume 23, 2013 Mary Astell The Christian Religion, as Professed by a Daughter of the Church of England Edited by Jacqueline Broad Volume 24, 2013

Sophia of Hanover Memoirs (1630–1680) Edited and translated by Sean Ward Volume 25, 2013 Katherine Austen Book M: A London Widow’s Life Writings Edited by Pamela S. Hammons Volume 26, 2013 Anne Killigrew “My Rare Wit Killing Sin”: Poems of a Restoration Courtier Edited by Margaret J. M. Ezell Volume 27, 2013 Tullia d’Aragona and Others The Poems and Letters of Tullia d’Aragona and Others: A Bilingual Edition Edited and translated by Julia L. Hairston Volume 28, 2014 Luisa de Carvajal y Mendoza The Life and Writings of Luisa de Carvajal y Mendoza Edited and translated by Anne J. Cruz Volume 29, 2014 Russian Women Poets of the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries: A Bilingual Edition Edited and translated by Amanda Ewington Volume 30, 2014

The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe: The Toronto Series

Se r ie S edi to r S Margaret L. King and Albert Rabil, Jr. Se r ie S edi to r , e ng l i S h te x tS Elizabeth H. Hageman

Previous Publications in the Series Jacques du Bosc L’Honnête Femme: The Respectable Woman in Society and the New Collection of Letters and Responses by Contemporary Women Edited and translated by Sharon Diane Nell and Aurora Wolfgang Volume 31, 2014 Lady Hester Pulter Poems, Emblems, and The Unfortunate Florinda Edited by Alice Eardley Volume 32, 2014

Jeanne Flore Tales and Trials of Love, Concerning Venus’s Punishment of Those Who Scorn True Love and Denounce Cupid’s Sovereignity: A Bilingual Edition and Study Edited and translated by Kelly Digby Peebles Poems translated by Marta Rijn Finch Volume 33, 2014 Veronica Gambara Complete Poems: A Bilingual Edition Critical introduction by Molly M. Martin Edited and translated by Molly M. Martin and Paola Ugolini Volume 34, 2014

Portraits of the Queen Mother: Polemics, Panegyrics, Letters CATHERINE DE MÉDICIS AND OTHERS •

Translation and study by LEAH L. CHANG AND KATHERINE KONG

Iter Inc. Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies Toronto 2014

Iter: Gateway to the Middle Ages and Renaissance Tel: 416/978–7074 Email: [email protected] Fax: 416/978–1668

Web: www.itergateway.org

Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies Victoria University in the University of Toronto Tel: 416/585–4465 Email: [email protected] Fax: 416/585–4430

Web: www.crrs.ca

© 2014 Iter Inc. & Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies All rights reserved. Printed in Canada. Iter and the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies gratefully acknowledge the generous support of James E. Rabil, in memory of Scottie W. Rabil, toward the publication of this book. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Portraits of the queen mother : polemics, panegyrics, letters / Catherine de Médicis and others ; translation and study by Leah L. Chang and Katherine Kong. (The other voice in early modern Europe. The Toronto series ; 35) Translated from the French. Includes bibliographical references and index. Issued in print and electronic formats. ISBN 978-0-7727-2172-3 (pbk).—ISBN 978-0-7727-2173-0 (pdf) 1. Catherine de Médicis, Queen, consort of Henry II, King of France, 1519–1589—Correspondence. 2. Queens—France—Biography. 3. Mothers—France—Biography. 4. France—Politics and government—16th century—Sources. I. Chang, Leah L., translator II. Kong, Katherine, translator III. Victoria University (Toronto, Ont.). Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, issuing body IV. Iter Inc., issuing body V. Series: Other voice in early modern Europe. Toronto series ; 35 DC119.8.P67 2014

944.028092

C2014-905892-6

C2014-905893-4 Cover illustration: Portrait of Catherine de Medici, Queen Consort of King Henry II of Valois, c.1547–59 (oil on canvas) / Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence, Italy / De Agostini Picture Library / Bridgeman Images DGA995707. Cover design: Maureen Morin, Information Technology Services, University of Toronto Libraries. Typesetting and production: Iter Inc.

Contents Acknowledgments

xi

Introduction

1

Letters of Catherine de Médicis, Selections Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors on the Affairs of France in the Sixteenth Century, Selections Marvelous Discourse on the Life, Actions, and Deportment of Catherine de Médicis, Queen Mother (1576), Selections Pierre de Bourdeille, Seigneur de Brantôme, “Second Discourse on the Queen, Mother of Our Last Kings, Catherine de Médicis,” Selections. From Book of Ladies, Poetry, and Funerary Writings Appendix

63

111 141

181 209

“Letters of Naturalization for Lorenzo de’ Medici, Duke of Urbino, and Catherine, His Daughter” “Copy of Letters Sent to the Queen Mother by One of Her Servants after the Death of the Late King Henri II” An Alarm for the French and Their Neighbors. Composed by Eusèbe Philadelphe Cosmopolite, in the Form of Dialogues, Selections The Tocsin, against the Slaughterers and Perpetrators of Confusion in France (1577), Selections Oration Given at the Funeral Rites of the Queen Mother of the King by Monsieur Renaud de Beaune, Selections Etienne Pasquier on the Death of the Queen Mother Bibliography

255

Index

269

210 212 225 233 241 250

Acknowledgments The completion of this volume would not have been possible without the support of many. First, we owe our thanks to Albert Rabil and Margaret King for encouraging us in pursuing Catherine de Médicis from this angle—that of a multiple portaiture—and for guiding us patiently through the completion of the project. Cheryl Lemmens was an exemplary copyeditor and indexer. Margaret EnglishHaskin and Anabela Piersol provided invaluable assistance with the material production of the volume. We thank The George Washington University’s College of Arts and Sciences and Department of Romance, German, and Slavic Languages and Literatures for their generous financial assistance during key stages in the project. We would also like to acknowledge the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the Musée cantonal des Beaux-Arts de Lausanne for their permission to use images from works in their collections. Masha Belenky, Holly Dugan, Lisa Leff, and Lynn Westwater were excellent critical readers at the early stages of the project. Chadd Wish was a devoted and tireless research assistant. We are indebted to Katherine Crawford and Mack Holt who generously lent their time and expertise to reading the introduction and offering us invaluable suggestions; David LaGuardia and Theresa Earenfight generously shared pre-publication research. Special thanks also goes to Mary McKinley who lent us her sage advice at many points along the way, and to Lynn Westwater for her help with sixteenth-century Italian. Any errors that remain in the introduction or translations are our own. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, we are grateful to our families for their unfailing support.

xi

Introduction Catherine de Médicis and the Other Voice In the course of an extraordinary career that spanned over fifty years, Catherine de Médicis was, by turns, queen consort of Henri II, advisor to her sons François II, Charles IX, and Henri III, and, during several extended periods, regent of France.1 In her wake there followed a rich archive of texts by various writers who commented on her queenship, some enthusiastically adulatory, others condemnatory and pejorative. Catherine also left behind a complex, even paradoxical, legacy. On the one hand, she was and is still known as a generous patron, particularly of architecture and the visual arts. On the other, her notorious, Machiavellian reputation as the instigator of civil and religious strife is still firmly entrenched in the popular imagination; until relatively recently, this view of Catherine was also quite prevalent in the scholarly imagination. Catherine’s own letters—of which she wrote thousands, both diplomatic and personal—provide a much more nuanced and sympathetic view of her queenship. These letters are the closest we have to an authentic “other voice” that can compete with the portrait of the ambitious and vindictive queen that has filtered down to us. It would be wrong, however, to claim that Catherine’s letters are unproblematically transparent or that they portray her in stark contradistinction to the darker legacy that surrounds her name. Highly mediated by secretaries or by diplomatic intermediaries, and heavily tailored to meet the anticipated desire of their recipients or to advance her own objectives, these letters reveal Catherine de Médicis to be a political creature, one whose deft diplomatic maneuverings and extraordinary power are compelling and remarkable in a kingdom that did not officially permit women to rule from the French throne. It was in response to this unprecedented female political agency that Catherine became the focus of myriad sixteenth-century texts, some laudatory and eulogistic, others deprecatory and polemical. If Catherine’s letters represent an “other voice” that may be set against the defamatory rhetoric that has greatly defined her historical reputation, they represent only one in a multitude of textual voices that present readers with wildly different narratives of the queen mother. In this sense, it is perhaps reductive to invoke the notion of a singular “other voice” in the case of Catherine de Médicis, for the portrait of her that has come down to us is shaped by multiple voices, and by multiple competing narratives. 1. As she was queen consort and queen mother of France, we have elected to use the Gallicized “de Médicis” when referring to Catherine. Except for direct citations, all other references to members of the Medici family use the Anglicized “de Medici.”

1

2 Introduction Portraits of the Queen Mother brings together selected texts contemporary to Catherine’s queenship—including ambassadorial reports, polemical pamphlets, and panegyric biography, alongside Catherine’s own letters—to show how the authority of this queen was carefully constructed and challenged through several important textual genres of the period. The objectives of these portraits differ greatly. If Catherine’s admirers lauded her generous patronage of the arts, her attempts at conciliation between Protestants and Catholics, and her valiant efforts to preserve the throne for her sons in a time of intrigue and strife, detractors accused her of being a spendthrift, poisoner, and instigator of religious war, who ruthlessly sacrificed her subjects and even her children to further her own ambition. Rather than recuperate Catherine from a “black legend” that has had remarkable traction over the course of centuries, Portraits of the Queen Mother seeks to show how these various and often partisan texts contributed to the fashioning of a female political persona, often to dramatically different ends. All of these texts craft a distinctly gendered political persona, frequently predicated on a particular conception of Catherine’s maternity and its political function. Catherine herself carefully cultivated her maternity as an important foundation for her authoritative role, both visually through various media and spectacles, and rhetorically in her letters.2 The texts gathered in this volume thus all explore to some degree not only female authority and power, but also royal maternity as a source of this authority. The construction of Catherine’s public persona as queen mother is particularly striking in an age that struggled with the authority of queens.3 By custom that took the force of law, women did not inherit the crown of France.4 Because 2. Catherine, for instance, famously wore only black after the death of Henri II, a visual symbol of her perpetually somber role as widow and mother to the king. 3. This was clearly a visible issue, as there were in fact other powerful queens in France and England in this period, such as Mary Tudor and Elizabeth I, and many powerful women, such as Anne de Bretagne, and Anne de France (also known as Anne de Beaujeu), to name just a few. For an examination of the many ruling queens in Europe from 1100–1600, of which France is the notable exception for having none, see Armin Wolf, “Reigning Queens in Medieval Europe: When, Where, and Why,” in Medieval Queenship, ed. John Carmi Parsons (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998), 169–88. 4. See our discussion of Salic law in this introduction. For an account of the “opening phase” of the debate over women’s exclusion from rule in France, see Sarah Hanley, “Identity Politics and Rulership in France: Female Political Place and the Fraudulent Salic Law in Christine de Pizan and Jean de Montreuil,” in Changing Identities in Early Modern France, ed. Michael Wolfe (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997), 78–94. There is a large and growing bibliography on women and specifically queens and political rule in the medieval West; for just a few studies, see Parsons, ed., Medieval Queenship; Peggy McCracken, “Introduction: Defining Queenship in Medieval Europe,” in The Romance of Adultery: Queenship and Sexual Transgression in Old French Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 1–24; Janet L. Nelson, “Medieval Queenship,” in Women in Medieval Western European Culture, ed. Linda E. Mitchell (New York: Garland, 1999), 179–207; and Theresa Earenfight’s Queenship in Medieval Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).

Introduction 3 of this exclusion, the status of a French queen was necessarily relationally dependent upon her ties to her royal husband: in other words, a woman was queen of France with any attendant powers only insofar as she was queen consort to the king. Those attendant powers, nevertheless, could be quite expansive in the early modern period. A queen was not only, or even necessarily, a representative of the king’s will, although it was certainly due to his authority that she was able to wield her own. Queens exercised their own distinct political power. One basis for this power was linked to the queen’s childbearing role, especially for a woman like Catherine de Médicis who was expected to bear the heirs to the throne; the queen’s ability to produce an heir secured her place and her own political capital. Yet this dynastic function did not exclude other possibilities for power and authority, and even queen consorts for whom the pressure to produce an heir was less urgent—for instance, queens who were married to kings after the death of a first wife who had already borne children to ensure the dynastic succession— enjoyed a certain authority on the basis of their proximity to the king.5 A queen could also be regent. Although regencies, especially female regencies, were often controversial because regency practices were largely conventional and not legally codified, it was possible for a French queen to govern in the event of the king’s absence or incapacitation, or upon his death if her children were still minors.6 For Catherine de Médicis, events aligned to create possibilities for her to rule at numerous points in her life in various capacities, but it was especially in 5. Catherine’s daughter, Elisabeth de Valois, for instance, was Philip II of Spain’s third wife, and was likely under less pressure to bear an heir, as the inheritance was already secure in Philip’s son Don Carlos. Nevertheless, as early mortality of heirs was always a possibility, any queen was implicitly expected to bear children. Despite playing a different role in the dynastic succession of Spain, Elisabeth nonetheless appears to have enjoyed a certain diplomatic authority vis-à-vis her husband, as Catherine’s letters to her suggest. 6. “The vocation of regency was consolidated with the exclusion of women from the succession, and under the Valois the tasks at the heart of the dynasty became specialized: the king was to reign, the queen to second him and substitute for him if he was a minor, absent, or incapacitated; his relatives to assist, or to assume the government if need be. On the eve of the sixteenth century this institutional genesis was complete; Louise of Savoy, Catherine de Medici, and Anne of Austria would officiate with full legal rights over the fundamental laws of the monarchy, among which the regency now took its proper place.” André Poulet, “Capetian Women and the Regency: The Genesis of a Vocation,” in Medieval Queenship, 116. Specific acts were issued to enable specific regencies, but these did not seem to hold precedence over later regencies. As Tracy Adams writes: “Despite a number of documents clearly intended to create precedents, regencies had always been formed anew as necessary to respond to the exigencies of the situation at hand.” See her “Christine de Pizan, Isabeau of Bavaria, and Female Regency,” French Historical Studies 32, no. 1 (Winter 2009), 5. As well, see our discussion later in this section of the so-called Salic law, which did provide some sort of legal precedent but was centuries-old, internally contradictory, and by no means widely observed in France after the Merovingian and Carolingian periods.

4 Introduction her role as queen mother that she was able to exert her authority. While queen consort to Henri II, Catherine was twice regent in the king’s absence, but it was most notably after Henri’s death that she was regent, during the minority of her son, Charles IX. After Charles’s death, she acted as regent again in the transition to the reign of her next son, Henri III, once more in her capacity as queen mother.7 Catherine was, quite remarkably, the first French queen to serve as regent without prior royal designation: she effectively made herself regent during the minority of Charles IX by insisting that her position as mother of the young king conferred upon her a natural authority and made her the appropriate choice for the regency.8 That Catherine successfully made herself regent, advisor to her sons, and a de facto power behind the throne during their reigns shows how the seemingly circumscribed role of queen mother could yield opportunities for considerable authority, and how Catherine herself paid careful attention to the cultivation of the sources and presentation of that authority. The ways in which Catherine translated this cultivated authority into concrete royal policy is by no means transparent, and this lack of transparency appears to have infuriated many of her contemporaries, even as it continues to perplex scholars today. That Catherine could be portrayed so differently by her contemporaries over the course of her lifetime is due not only to the differing political and religious stances of these contemporaries, but also to the fact that Catherine herself appears to have changed her position and policies several times over. These shifts were likely in response to the volatile events of her lifetime; her career lasted more than twenty years, spanning what was arguably one of the most violent and contentious periods in French history. Crafting a coherent royal policy during the increasingly partisan French civil wars alongside a commanding personal, political, and cultural authority was a complex, multifaceted project at which Catherine both succeeded and failed: her influence was undeniable, but its limitations were also demonstrated by the virulent detractors she inspired. As both a source of royal policy and as a political persona, Catherine was a shifting subject for her contemporaries, and she has continued to be a moving target for scholars of her life and works centuries later.9 7. Her first son François II was of age when Henri II died. French kings were considered old enough to rule in their own right when they reached their fourteenth year; in other words, on their thirteenth birthday. François II ascended the throne in 1559, at the age of fifteen, and reigned until his death in 1560. 8. She “acted simply as mother of the young new king Charles IX and her regental prerogative was later confirmed by a meeting of the Estates General”: Elizabeth McCartney, “The King’s Mother and Royal Prerogative in Early Sixteenth-Century France,” in Medieval Queenship, 117. By way of counterexample, Isabeau of Bavaria had been designated by her husband Charles VI to serve after his death as regent for her minor son, assisted by an advisory council. See Poulet, “Capetian Women and the Regency,” 114–15, nn. 4 and 5, and passim, for other examples. 9. We would like to thank Mack Holt for insightfully pointing out that Catherine was a “moving target,” whose policies and opinions were ever changing because of the complexity of the civil wars.

Introduction 5 The texts in Portraits of the Queen Mother suggest several potential sources for Catherine’s authority: her marriage and proximity to the king, her familial relations, and her status and responsibility as mother to the heirs of the throne. The very existence of that authority, moreover, and its translation into Catherine’s concrete prerogative as a political actor behind the throne was debated and negotiated in a complex web of public perceptions and opinions. The organizing logic of this volume references this often vexed negotiation, bringing together a diversity of texts not usually read together, all of which participate in the fashioning—positive and negative—of the queen mother’s persona. How did this network of sources interact? How could a queen like Catherine fashion her public persona and her own way of ruling, and what was the reception, borne out in texts responding to Catherine’s queenship, of that fashioning? How do these texts define and circumscribe the extent and limits of her powers? More broadly, what do these multiple portraits suggest about the role of texts in the fashioning and practice of early modern political power, and more specifically, of Catherine’s distinct mode of queenship?

Historical Context I: Becoming a French Queen In several contemporary French accounts of her life, one of the most compelling details about Catherine de Médicis’s identity was her Italian and specifically Florentine birth. Born in 1519 in Florence, she was orphaned within months, and cared for by family members and raised in convents for most of her childhood.10 She was married to Henri, duc d’Orléans, second son of François Ier and future King of France, in 1533 when she was fourteen, and spent the rest of her life in France.11 Contemporary accounts point to her Italian and Florentine origins, emphasizing the Italian cultural values and customs she presumably retained.12 The developing portraiture of Catherine during the sixteenth century is necessarily in dialogue with those changes. 10. Catherine was born on April 13, 1519. Her mother, Madeleine de la Tour d’Auvergne, died on April 28, 1519; her father, Lorenzo de Medici, died on May 4, 1519. 11. Henri II was baptized as Henry in honor of his godfather, Henry VIII of England, but is known more commonly by the Gallicized version of his name. We will use the Gallicized “Henri” from this point forward. 12. Sheila ffolliott argues that “Medici” became a kind of positive byword for Catherine’s patronage, suggesting that artists sought her out specifically because she was a Medici: “ ‘La Florentine’ or ‘La bonne Françoise’: Some Sixteenth-Century Commentators on Catherine de’ Medici and her Patronage,” in Medici Women as Cultural Mediators, ed. Christina Strunck (Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 2012), 17–33. On the other hand, R.J. Knecht argues that as Catherine left Florence at the age of thirteen, her tastes were ultimately more French than Italian: Catherine de’ Medici (New York: Addison Wesley, 1998), 220. Knecht does note, however, that Catherine would have continued to be in touch with Italian contacts and that the court of François Ier was quite hospitable to Italian artists; it thus

6 Introduction This Italianness was negatively portrayed when the political climate demanded it, placing Catherine in a lineage of preceding and successive foreign queens whose foreign birth was excoriated as a political expedience.13 Pamphlets and other texts that emphasize Catherine’s Florentine birth tend to neglect her French origins. Her mother was Madeleine de la Tour d’Auvergne, countess of Boulogne, from one of France’s oldest families, whose nobility outranked that of her husband, Lorenzo de Medici.14 Their marriage, like many dynastic marriages of the era, was made in the interest of political alliance. In this case, the marriage was devised against a backdrop of political negotiations between France and Italy, to strengthen bonds and respective political interests: François Ier, distantly related to Madeleine, and Pope Clement VII, related to Catherine, anticipated mutual support for their respective goals.15 Specifically, François hoped to gain the support of the Medici popes for his efforts to regain Milan; Medici interest in the marriage was described as that of “parvenus” attracted to the prospect of alliance with the French crown.16 For both the Medici pope and France, the prospect of a Franco-Italian alliance was deemed expedient in the face of the increasing domination of Italy by Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor.17 Moreover, at the time of her marriage Catherine was a great heiress, endowed with the wealth of her Medici merchant family and considerable French estates, and the marriage was considered a boon to French interests politically, materially, and culturally.18

seems reasonable to imagine that contemporary “Italian” and “French” taste and patronage practices were not entirely distinct in her experience. 13. Tracy Adams’s The Life and Afterlife of Isabeau of Bavaria (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010) offers a compelling account of the eponymous medieval foreign queen’s fate at the hands of chroniclers. Subsequent queens who have also been blamed for their foreign origins include Marie de Médicis and Anne d’Autriche in the seventeenth century, and, perhaps most famously, Marie Antoinette in the eighteenth century. 14. He was made Duke of Urbino by his uncle, thus making him lesser nobility. Machiavelli’s The Prince is dedicated to Lorenzo, and Catherine was not spared this association. See the selections from the Discours merveilleux and from the Tocsain, contre les massacreurs et auteurs des confusions en France, in this volume. 15. Knecht describes Clement as her uncle, but Frederic Baumgartner counters in his review of Knecht’s The Valois: Kings of France, 1328–1589 (London: Hambledon, 2004) that they were “first cousins twice-removed”: English Historical Review 122, no. 497 (June 2007), 813–14. As Clement was the son of her great-great uncle, it is perhaps best to consider them distant cousins. 16. Knecht, The Valois, 193, and Catherine de’ Medici, 6, respectively. 17. Frederic Baumgartner, France in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1995), 44. 18. Her political capital plummeted, however, along with François Ier’s dowry hopes, when Clement VII died almost a year after her wedding to Henri; Henri only became the dauphin on the death of his older brother, François, in 1536.

Introduction 7 Indeed, Catherine’s Italianness was not always considered a liability.19 Italy’s cultural status in sixteenth-century France cannot be underestimated. French literature and poetry in particular were marked by Italian influence, and by the desire to produce in French a literature of equal value and stature; François Ier was also a great patron of Italian art.20 In addition to her wealth, then, Catherine also brought to France a certain cultural cachet.21 Yet regardless of whether her Florentine origins were cast as an asset or as a shortcoming in contemporary accounts, the focus on the significance of her foreign birth raises an important question both for Catherine and for other early modern queens: how was her identity as a queen and queen mother—and by extension the identity of any French queen or queen mother—constituted?22 How did accusations of foreignness signify in the intermarrying dynastic landscape of pre-modern Europe? How did this foreignness and the queen’s maternity interact when she was thrust into a position of unexpected authority? Catherine’s reception at the hands of contemporary and later histories suggests that the aspects of her identity most vulnerable to attack were the ones that marked her difference as a ruler: her foreign birth, and her sex and gender. The omission of Catherine’s maternal heritage in certain accounts of her lineage is perhaps ironic since her own maternal role takes center stage as the sine qua non of her political authority: it is ultimately Catherine’s maternity that brings her to the regency in the early 1560s, at the outset of one of France’s most troubled 19. Italy enjoyed a very particular status in sixteenth-century France, especially in literary circles. The court was quite Italian under François Ier; see Heller and Balsamo below, as cited in note 147. Among the numerous studies addressing the role of Italy in the sixteenth-century French literature, see Cécile Alduy, Politique des “Amours”: poétique et genèse d’un genre français nouveau (1544–1560) (Geneva: Droz, 2007); Dorothy Coleman, The Gallo-Roman Muse: Aspects of Roman Literary Tradition in Sixteenth-Century French Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979); JoAnn DellaNeva, “Du Bellay: Reader of Scève, Reader of Petrarch,” Romanic Review 79 (1988): 401–11, and “An Exploding Canon: Petrarch and the Petrarchists in Renaissance France,” Annali d’Italianistica 22 (2004): 189–206; and Dora E. Polachek, “A la recherche du spirituel: L’Italie et les Dames galantes de Brantôme,” Romanic Review 94 (2003): 227–43, here 232. As we shall discuss, the positive attributes associated with Catherine’s Italianness changed markedly after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres in 1572. 20. François’s patronage of Leonardo da Vinci is perhaps the best known example of his support of Italian artists. Da Vinci spent the last years of his life in a comfortable house in Amboise at François’s invitation. 21. Although see note 18 above regarding her dowry. Brantôme discusses in some detail the considerable French lands and goods included in her dowry; see our translation in this volume. Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme, Recueil des Dames, poésies et tombeaux, ed. Etienne Vaucheret (Paris: Gallimard, 1991). Brantôme’s editor adds specifics about the Italian portion of her dowry, including money, jewels, and their value; see Recueil des Dames, p. 31, n. 6. 22. For example, contemporary accounts differ on her spoken French, with some praising its fluency and others deriding her heavy Italian accent; see our discussion below of Brantôme.

8 Introduction and violent times, the period of the Wars of Religion.23 That maternal role was in fact rather late in coming: Catherine and Henri were childless for the first ten years of their marriage, for which they were subjected to intense speculation and even medical examination.24 That Henri had at least one recognized illegitimate child doubtless increased pressure on the princess, since it proved Henri’s fertility and cast doubts on Catherine’s own childbearing ability.25 Henri’s unexpected ascendancy to the status of dauphin upon his brother’s death in 1536 made the issue of progeny all the more pressing; queenship in pre-modern France was first and foremost a “genealogical vocation.”26 When Catherine finally did bear children, she did so in profusion: over a span of twelve years, she gave birth to ten children, of whom she outlived eight (Fig.1). Having produced viable heirs and secure in her role as queen, Catherine twice acted as regent in Henri’s absence while he was away on military campaigns, but with minimal powers.27 At the time of Henri’s sudden death in 1559 due to complications from a wound to the eye sustained while jousting at his daughter’s wedding festivities, their eldest son, François, was fifteen. Legally old enough to 23. According to Nicola Sutherland, the prestige of Catherine’s French lineage is “conveniently forgotten” by later historians swayed by more nefarious aspects of her legend: see “Catherine de Medici: The Legend of the Wicked Italian Queen,” Sixteenth Century Journal, 9, no. 2 (1978), 52. 24. This initial barrenness, coupled with her unpaid dowry, makes it all the more striking that she was not cast aside. For a brief but cogent overview of some of the concerns raised by a queen’s barrenness, see John Carmi Parsons, “Family, Sex, and Power: The Rhythms of Medieval Queenship,” in Medieval Queenship, 4–5. For a modern medical assessment of Catherine’s and Henry’s infertility, see Gordetsky, Rabinowitz, and O’Brien, “The ‘Infertility’ of Catherine de Medici and its Influence on Sixteenth-Century France,” Canadian Journal of Urology 16, no. 2 (April 2009), 4584–88. A more historical view is presented in Helen King’s Midwifery, Obstetrics and the Rise of Gynaecology: The Uses of a Sixteenth-Century Compendium (Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007), 36. The question was of scientific interest even in the eighteenth century. See J.A. Hazon, Notice des hommes les plus célèbres de la faculté de médecine de l’Université de Paris (Paris: Benoît Morin, 1778), 30–36. See also the reference to the question of her repudiation in one of the appended letters to the Discours merveilleux in our Appendix. 25. Fairly early in his marriage to Catherine, Henri fathered a daughter with Philippa Duc, whom he legitimized as Diane de France and whose marriage he arranged: Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 29, and Frederic Baumgartner, “Henry II and the Papal Conclave of 1549,” Sixteenth Century Journal 16, no. 3 (1985), 301–14, here 302. Henri later had at least two sons with women other than Catherine: Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 30. 26. Poulet’s description of queenship in “Capetian Women and the Regency,” Medieval Queenship, 103. 27. Knecht gives the dates as April 1548 and February 1552 in Catherine de’ Medici, 43: “She was dismayed to find, however, that she was expected to share the presidency of the council with Jean Bertrand, Keeper of the Seals, and that all decisions were to be taken by a majority of councilors.” Zealous to maintain her authority, she refused to allow her regency commission to be published, citing Louise de Savoie’s regency, which needed no such restrictions (44).

Introduction 9 be king, he nevertheless needed guidance;28 one source of such guidance came from the relatives of his wife, Mary Stuart, the Queen of Scotland and niece of the Guise family.29 The duc de Guise and the cardinal de Lorraine exerted much influence on the young couple, trading on their status as the uncles of the new queen.30 François II was king for only a year and a half. When he died in 1560, the heir to the throne was François’s nine-year old brother, Charles, and Catherine was officially appointed gouvernante de France by the privy council and empowered to make administrative decisions in the young king’s name.31 However, how she ultimately arrived at the position of gouvernante is somewhat unclear—historical sources, including several included in this volume, give slightly different versions of the same story. It seems both that circumstances aligned in Catherine’s favor and that she actively capitalized on her role as queen mother. The death of the young François, with only his nine-year-old brother to take his place, left nothing short of a power vacuum. Catherine and other nobles did not wish to see the Guises grab power again as they had under the reign of François II. Antoine de Bourbon, King of Navarre and first prince of the blood—or, the next prince in line to the throne after the younger brothers of François II—was a weak and wavering alternative, an obvious but undesirable choice for regent in such circumstances.32 Under these fraught conditions, a significant percentage of nobles, the Estates General, and magistrates of the Parlement of Paris, were ultimately persuaded of what Catherine aggressively asserted: that, as the mother of the young king, she was clearly the best choice to govern in his stead. As Catherine’s own letters and other texts attest, however, this was a regency she had to fight for—there was no official royal document legitimizing her claim, as had been the case with previous female regencies. And while there were many complex factors leading to Catherine’s appointment, her own role in securing the position, even before the appointment was officially made, should not be underestimated. There had previ28. Katherine Crawford notes that for regency purposes, majorities were traditionally declared when the king turned thirteen, that is, when he entered his fourteenth year, but much later for other men— presumably, men not in the position of immediately inheriting the crown; see Perilous Performances: Gender and Regency in Early Modern France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 1. 29. Knecht, The Valois, 195. Mary Stuart’s mother was Marie de Guise, sister to François, duc de Guise; Charles, cardinal de Lorraine; and Louis Ier, cardinal de Guise, among others. 30. They are described as having “seized power” the day after Henri’s death; Knecht, Catherine de’Medici, 59. Their avuncular efforts have been described as leading to a “tyrannie Guisienne”; see James Thompson, The Wars of Religion in France, 1559–1576 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909), 22. 31. He likely died of an ear infection or abscess. On Catherine’s appointment, see Knecht, Catherine de’Medici, 73. 32. Navarre was in a particularly vulnerable position in 1560 because he and especially his brother Louis, prince de Condé, were suspected of treason at the time; see our note 69 below. Catherine took advantage of this weakness to turn opinion in her favor.

10 Introduction ously been queen mothers in France—that is, widowed queens whose sons were heirs to the throne—yet the extent to which they exercised and were granted political powers during the reigns of their sons was controversial, and by no means consistent. In a variety of ways revealed by the texts in this volume, Catherine actively claimed her maternal status as a politically sound basis for defining and defending her regency. She was not alone in this conceptualizing of maternity and regency. Two medieval queens, Isabeau de Bavière and Blanche de Castile, also grounded their justification to hold the regency in their maternity. These three queens made a similar claim: that the queen mother, by virtue of her maternity and proximity to the minor king, was best suited to serve as both guardian and mentor to her son, and to perform administrative duties for the realm in his place.33 Regency by a queen mother had its political advantages. Her customary exclusion from the French throne, for instance, was a strong safeguard against conflict between her own ambitions and those of her son: while royal uncles or princes of the blood might have sought the crown for themselves, women by definition could not. Catherine’s innovation can be seen in the emphasis on maternal affection not only as the justification for her position as regent, but also as an important basis for her authority as regent, an affection that she continued to trade on even after her first regency as queen mother, and which also became a rhetorical device particularly in her letters.34 After Charles officially declared his majority in 1563 when he was thirteen years old, Catherine continued to play a dominant role in his government.35 Charles’s life, too, was short; he was only twenty-three when he died in 1574.36 This prompted the return to France of Catherine’s fourth son, Henri, the duc d’Anjou, who had been elected King of Poland the previous year.37 Henri abdi33. Crawford describes how Catherine invoked both forms of regency, tutelle and curatelle (guardianship and education of the young king, and attending to administration and governance in his stead, respectively), and their relation to maternal affection in her political claims: Perilous Performances, 38, 40, 43. Tracy Adams elaborates on the importance of tutelle, traditionally a maternal responsibility: “At first glance, tutelle may seem far removed from politics. However, physical possession of the dauphin potentially represented a strong claim to power”: Life and Afterlife of Isabeau of Bavaria, 93. See also note 28 in our translation of Catherine’s letters in this volume. 34. See Adams’s discussion of Isabeau of Bavaria’s regency as premised on maternal devotion and exclusion from the throne in Chapter 3, “Isabeau Mediatrix: Defining the Mediator Queen,” Life and Afterlife of Isabeau of Bavaria, 73–112, and Elizabeth McCartney’s examination of Louise de Savoie’s deployment of maternal devotion in “The King’s Mother and Royal Prerogative,” 117–41. 35. It should be noted that Catherine herself organized the declaration of Charles’s majority. The declaration thus should not be seen as an autonomous move on Charles’s part to separate himself from his mother’s authority, even though it was calculated to show publicly that Charles now reigned officially as an adult, and, in theory, under the direction of no other governing body. 36. Likely of tuberculosis. See Baumgartner, France in the Sixteenth Century, 217. 37. Catherine’s second son, Louis, died in infancy.

Introduction 11 cated the Polish throne in favor of the French one, and Catherine assumed the regency once again until he could return to France.38 During his reign, Catherine continued to play a significant role.39 Although Henri demonstrated a more developed sense of the direction of his own kingship than his brothers, Catherine’s importance to Henri is clear from her role as his official deputy in negotiations with the Protestants beginning in 1578 in what would come to be known as the conference at Nérac. Her influence on the throne was felt as late as 1585, when at sixty-six and just a few years before her death in 1589 she was once again instrumental to Henri in negotiations at Nemours over difficulties with the Guises and the ultraconservative Catholic League.40

Women’s Right to Rule in Early Modern France While the contestation of women’s right to rule has a long history, women’s actual rule has also been attested since ancient times. By custom, women did not inherit the throne in France.41 Over several centuries beginning in the Middle Ages, a complex series of events gave rise to an exclusionary inheritance practice whose basis was invoked as “Salic law.” Technically referring to the body of legal ordinances governing the Salians, the Frankish ancestors of the Merovingians, and codified around the early sixth century, Salic law continued to exert influence in France for many centuries.42 Although it fell into disuse after Merovingian 38. Knecht, Catherine de’Medici, 172, and The Valois, 210. Several of Catherine’s letters in this volume discuss and explain the regency. 39. As suggested by, among other things, the important letters she wrote during the negotiations at Nérac with Henri of Navarre. See Denis Crouzet, “ ‘A Strong Desire to be a Mother to all your Subjects’: A Rhetorical Experiment by Catherine de Medici,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 38, no. 1 (Winter 2008), 103–18. 40. For example, two letters that Henri III sent to his mother in 1587 read like treatises on the principles of his kingship; Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, vol. 9, ed. Gustave Baguenault de Puchesse (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1905), 430–37. On the negotiations at Nemours, see Baumgartner, France in the Sixteenth Century, 223. Notably, during the Day of the Barricades in 1588, it was Catherine who negotiated with the duc de Guise, the head of the archconservative Catholic League, which had taken control of the capital against Henri III; Catherine had planned on advising Henri to leave the city, but the king had already fled to Chartres. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 261–63. 41. Women could and did, however, inherit titles and lands. Like William Monter’s The Rise of Female Kings in Europe, 1300–1800 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012), Armin Wolf ’s “Reigning Queens in Medieval Europe” (note 3 above) observes the conspicuous absence of French reigning queens in an age that, albeit spanning several centuries, saw more than twenty reigning female queens in the rest of Europe. 42. For a discussion of the origins, development, and influence of Salic law, see Craig Taylor’s “The Salic Law, French Queenship, and the Defense of Women in the Late Middle Ages,” French Historical Studies 29, no. 4 (Fall 2006), 543–64, and “The Salic Law and the Valois Succession to the French Crown,” French History 15, no. 4 (December 2001), 358–77. See also Sarah Hanley’s “The Salic Law,”

12 Introduction and Carolingian expansion, Salic law was again invoked in the fifteenth century to claim ancient legal precedent for female exclusion from dynastic succession.43 Scholars disagree whether this law was revived for overtly or more subtly misogynist purposes: while it was interpreted to bar female succession, Salic law’s particular usefulness might have been due to its exclusion of women from the succession without directly claiming women’s inferiority. In other words, Salic law sidestepped the question of women’s incapacity to govern, which was contradicted historically by the fact of women regents and consorts who successfully wielded considerable power, as well as the more widespread circumstance of women who inherited and managed land, and oversaw households and the tutelage of children.44 This might have made it a politically more palatable tool to support extant, exclusionary succession practices in the face of clear historical contradiction. What is uncontested is that the sixth-century law is not the same as the version circulating in fifteenth-century France, when it was revived and discussed in texts by scholars associated with the French royal chancellery.45 Despite its name, the original legal ordinance discussing women’s inheritance dates not from the Salian period, but the Carolingian. A ninth-century redaction of the Salic law includes a section on property inheritance, which specifies that, “concerning Salic

in Political and Historical Encyclopedia of Women, ed. Christine Fauré (New York: Routledge, 2003) 2–18; “Identity Politics and Rulership in France,” in Changing Identities in Early Modern France; and “Social Sites of Political Practice in France: Lawsuits, Civil Rights, and the Separation of Powers in Domestic and State Government, 1500–1800,” American Historical Review, 102, no. 1 (1997): 27–52. 43. Taylor, “Salic Law, French Queenship,” 543. 44. Taylor’s “Salic Law, French Queenship” (564) discusses some of the reasons for preferring the authority of the Salic law “rather than the misogynist diatribe offered by …fourteenth-century sources.” Other reasons for which writers adopted the Salic law in the early fifteenth century are discussed in Taylor, “The Salic Law and the Valois Succession.” Sarah Hanley takes an opposing position, describing the law’s fifteenth-century forgery as decidedly misogynist, and part of a broader struggle over women’s defamation and political exclusion; see “The Salic Law,” esp. 4–5. For a summary of the debate, see Adams, “Christine de Pizan, Isabeau of Bavaria, and Female Regency.” It is plausible that both Taylor and Hanley are right: in other words, while misogynist defenses might have been in part responsible for a renewed interest in the illegitimacy of female rule, the resuscitation of the so-called Salic law by a broader circle of writers might also have been viewed as advantageous for making the argument against female rulership while avoiding claims about female insufficiency that history had shown to be patently absurd. Ralph Giesey contends that Salic law was exploited for political gain— and specifically to advance English claims to the French throne in the fourteenth century—and not motivated by misogyny per se; in his reading, female exclusion was emphasized by jurists centuries later. See Le Rôle méconnu de la loi salique: La succession royale, XIVe–XVIe siècles (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007), and “The Juristic Basis of Dynastic Right to the French Throne,” Transactions of the Americans Philosophical Society, n.s., 51, no. 5 (1961), 3–42. 45. Taylor, “Salic Law and the Valois Succession,” 359.

Introduction 13 land, no part of the inheritance may pass to a woman but all the inheritance of land passes to the virile sex.”46 The ninth-century text bans female inheritance of “Salic land,” or ancestral farmland; but this ban is also contradicted in other sections, as is perhaps not surprising for a body of laws that was essentially a written record of practices that were observed and transmitted orally over centuries. In the early fifteenth century, French cleric Jean de Montreuil inserted the phrase “in regno” in his citation and transcription of this passage, extending the law to apply to inheritance of the French realm—that is, the crown.47 His interpolation proved influential, and was reproduced in the sixteenth century, when Salic law saw a great renewal of interest as religious tensions highlighted both the need for a strong monarchy and the vulnerability of the royal succession.48 By the sixteenth century, then, a forged textual fragment governing private inheritance of family land came to be cited as an authority on female inheritance and exclusion from the French throne. Despite their exclusion from the throne in practice and theory, women could and did rule in various capacities.49 One of the greatest positions of power from which a woman could rule was that of regent. A term from the Latin “regere”—to guide, conduct, direct, keep straight, lead properly50—a regent was, quite simply, a ruler. The term is almost blissfully devoid of implications: making no claims for how the regent comes to power, it simply describes the fact of rule. Lexically related to “roi,” or king, regent is a gender-neutral term. The office of regent could be shared, and held by men or women, and it was an appointed, rather than marital or inherited, office. A regent was thus a provisional ruler neither 46. “De terra vero Salica nulla portio hereditatis mulieri veniat, sed ad viriliem sexum tota terrae hereditas perveniat … .” Cited in Hanley, “The Salic Law,” 2–3. 47. Montreuil’s interpolation appears in his “polemical treatise supporting the Valois monarchy against the English,” A toute la chevalerie: Taylor, “Salic Law, French Queenship,” 543–44, and “Salic Law and the Valois Succession,” 359 and 364. Hanley cites and translates Montreuil’s interpolation: “Mulier vero in regno nullam habeat portionem (Indeed no part in the realm may pass to a woman), in “The Salic Law,” 5. Montreuil’s reasons for doing this are unclear; in Hanley’s account (“The Salic Law”), it was largely a response to Christine de Pizan’s anti-misogynist efforts in the Livre de la cité des dames (Book of the City of Ladies). 48. It was invoked in its new incarnation in a 1464 tract arguing against English claims to the French crown, Pour ce que plusieurs, also known as La Loy Salique, première loy des François, printed eleven times between 1488 and 1558; Taylor, “Salic Law, French Queenship,” 544. According to Taylor, this interest in women and the succession—and by extension the Salic Law—was due to the Wars of Religion drawing attention to the royal succession, increasing concerns over the authenticity of Salic law, and the possibility of a female monarch across the channel: “Salic Law, French Queenship,” 562. 49. For an examination of women’s influence in French politics and culture in general in this period, and specifically the influence of queens and royal mistresses, see Kathleen Wellman’s Queens and Mistresses of Renaissance France (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013). 50. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879; reprint, 2002).

14 Introduction invested with the same responsibilities nor fettered by the same relational obligations as an anointed monarch. The flexibility of the term “regent” parallels that of the office and its possibilities for power, which is perhaps why regencies were so contested and the practices of regencies largely works in progress.51 Although Catherine was technically named “gouvernante” of France, rather than “régente,” these terms were understood to mean the same thing. And while in theory she shared power with Antoine de Bourbon, first prince of the blood who was named lieutenant general of France, Catherine was undoubtedly the power behind the throne during Charles’s minority, a power that everyone recognized. Catherine’s rise from consort to regent was not without historical precedent. France had seen women regents,52 but the ways in which Catherine came to govern as regent and to craft and perform her authority both during and after her regencies as queen mother were distinct for the extent of her influence, and for the ways in which she attended to the perception and exercise of power. Her regency under Charles IX is particularly noteworthy, not necessarily because the claims she made for it were unique, but rather because of the studied epistolographic and iconographic ways in which she made and performed these claims. The success of Catherine’s maneuvers to naturalize maternal affection in a political sphere and to wield it to political ends is brilliantly exposed in her letters, in which she aggressively performs maternal affection toward her children and even their spouses.53 There is nothing soft about this affection; expressions of feeling in her letters carry a political weight and charge without compromising their emotion or sincerity.54 Catherine’s considerable influence has endured in very tangible ways. She has long been celebrated as a patron of the arts, and for the ways in which her patronage has shaped the cultural landscape of France—from the visual arts to perfume production—even to the present day.55 No schoolchild, for instance, 51. On the history of the regency in France, see François Olivier-Martin, Les régences et la majorité des rois sous les Capétiens directs et les premiers Valois, 1060–1375 (Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1931). The term “régente” is first used in 1315; see Elizabeth M. Hallam, Capetian France, 987–1328 (London: Longman, 1980), 207, cited in McCracken, The Romance of Adultery, 169. 52. For example, Blanche de Castile, Isabeau de Bavière, Anne de France (Beaujeu), and Louise de Savoie. France, unlike Spain, Scotland, Sweden, and England, has no history of reigning queens. See Poulet, “Capetian Women and the Regency,” and Wolf, “Reigning Queens in Medieval Europe,” in Medieval Queenship, 93–116 and 169–88, respectively. 53. See, for instance, how she deploys maternal and affectionate rhetoric in her letters to Elisabeth de Valois and to the bishop of Limoges about Philip II of Spain. 54. See our detailed discussion of the letters below. 55. The critical archive on Catherine’s artistic influence is immense. For an overview of Catherine’s patronage in the various arts, see Jean-Pierre Babelon, “The Louvre: Royal Residence and Temple of the Arts,” in Realms of Memory: The Construction of the French Past, vol. 3: Symbols, ed. Pierre Nora and Lawrence D. Kritzman, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998); Edmond Bonnaffé, Inventaire des meubles de Catherine de Médicis en 1589 (Paris: 1874); Margriet

Introduction 15 can visit the Tuileries in Paris without coming face-to-face with her artistic and architectural influence.56 This celebrated legacy, however, stands in stark contradistinction to the toll wrought on Catherine’s historical reputation by the conflicts of the French religious wars. Whether or not Catherine’s political authority was compromised by the continuation of these wars, her public image certainly suffered from them, as is attested in the polemical pamphlets that proliferated in this period. Although Catherine’s rise to power might have benefited from the flexibility of regency practices, it almost certainly fueled arguments against female rule, whether it was directly from the throne or beside it. Her regency and influence likely contributed at least in part to the pitch of the debate over female succession, particularly for a French public seeking a scapegoat for the violence and atrocities of the religious wars. Salic law was cited into the seventeenth century as an authority not to be contravened, and female regency specifically as a violation of its tenets.57 In some ways, this negative opinion—of female rule and of Catherine’s rule specifically—confirms the position Catherine had carved out for herself. She took advantage of a particular moment in French politics to wield considerable power, recognizing and deploying the tremendous potential of a multifaceted political portraiture to shape and perform her exceptional regency.

Historical Context II: The Wars of Religion and the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres The violence of the French civil wars, which first erupted in the early 1560s and arguably continued into the seventeenth century, has overshadowed much of Catherine’s moderate stance during these conflicts, as well as the enormous contributions she made to the creative and artistic culture of France.58 Although Hoogvliet, “Princely Culture and Catherine de Médicis,” in Princes and Princely Culture, 1450–1650, vol. 1, ed. Martin Gosman, Alasdair A. MacDonald, and Arjo J. Vanderjagt (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Roy Strong, Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals, 1450–1650 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984); Nicola Sutherland, Catherine de Medici and the Ancien Régime (London: Historical Association, 1966); Frances Yates, The Valois Tapestries (1959; reprint, New York: Routledge, 1999); and Alexandra Zvereva, Les Clouet de Catherine de Médicis: Chefs-d’oeuvre graphiques du Musée Condé (Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2002). 56. Although the original gardens and palace that Catherine built were destroyed in the nineteenth century, the Tuileries remain an iconic Parisian landmark. 57. Taylor, “Salic Law, French Queenship,” 562–63. 58. As Virginia Scott and Sara Sturm-Maddox have argued, “the horrors of the conflicts that followed [the declaration of Charles IX’s majority], however… may not only have ‘obscured the central theme of Catherine’s life,’ that of peace and reconciliation, but also ‘cost her a place as a creative genius in the art of the festival.’ ” Performance, Poetry and Politics on the Queen’s Day: Catherine de Médicis and Pierre de Ronsard at Fontainebleau (Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007), 1. Scott and Sturm-Maddox cite here Roy Strong, Art and Power, 99.

16 Introduction no summary can do justice to the complexity of these wars, any assessment of Catherine de Médicis’s legacy must address their profound influence on the reception—from the sixteenth century onward—of her queenship. Indeed, the discontent and animosity resulting from the wars seemingly effaced her benefaction and even turned it against her: in contemporary texts, her artistic and cultural patronage was frequently touted as evidence of profligacy. Perhaps less tangibly, her efforts at conciliation might well have been unacceptable to a public deeply and increasingly violently divided, and might have contributed to the degree of invective leveled against her. Although twentieth-century scholarship has frequently argued that religion was a cover for political or economic motives in the civil wars that rocked France in the second half of the sixteenth century, historians of the last few decades have convincingly shown that the conflicts known as the “Wars of Religion” were, in fact, very much about religion.59 To be sure, economic and political triggers such as grain shortages or class biases likely played a crucial role in the timing and character of the wars and other episodes of violence, but scholars no longer see these factors as the chief cause of the violence.60 Historians now generally agree that the French Wars of Religion were fueled by an inability in each party, Catholic and Protestant, to tolerate cultural and religious features of the other, characteristics that, for Catholic or Protestant, defined orthodox religious practice and the character of the body social. In other words, the French civil wars were fueled by a deeply entrenched—and seemingly insurmountable—confessional divide between Catholics and Protestants. Patterns of alternating religious tolerance and coexistence, violence and oppression emerge well before the onset of the first declared War of Religion in 1562, 59. Although it is impossible to rule out the influence of any additional factors, historians have worked in recent years to bring religion “back” to the Wars of Religion. See, for example, Natalie Zemon Davis’s seminal essay, “The Rites of Violence: Religious Riot in Sixteenth-Century France,” Past and Present 59 (1973), 51–91; Mack P. Holt, The French Wars of Religion, 1562–1629 (especially Chapter 1, “Prologue: Gallicanism and Reform in the Sixteenth Century,” 1–49); Barbara Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross: Catholics and Huguenots in Sixteenth-Century Paris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); and Diefendorf, “Rites of Repair: Restoring Community in the French Religious Wars,” Past and Present 214, Suppl. 7 (2012), 30–51. 60. Older scholarship trended toward emphasizing the political nature of the civil wars, and to suggest that the religious auspices of the conflict were simply a cover for political motives; see, for example, the essays collected in J.H.M. Salmon, ed., The French Wars of Religion: How Important were Religious Factors? (Boston: Heath, 1967). Although historians now generally agree that questions of religion were the first and most important conflict triggers of the wars, this is not to say that political or economic issues did not play an instrumental role. For recent work that shows the ways in which religious, economic, and political factors were intertwined, see Mack P. Holt, “Wine, Community and Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Burgundy,” Past and Present 138, no. 1 (February 1993), 58–93, and Stuart Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers: The Guise Family and the Making of Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

Introduction 17 at the beginning of the reign of Charles IX and during Catherine’s first regency as queen mother.61 The first war was in many ways the final step in escalating episodes of violence between Catholics and Huguenots (as Protestants came to be called in France) during the 1550s and early 1560s.62 Tensions between the two groups had been present since the emergence of French evangelical and Protestant voices during the reign of Charles IX’s grandfather, François Ier. Although François has sometimes been portrayed as quite sympathetic to the reformers—perhaps in part because his deep and sincere interest in the new learning made him receptive to evangelical thinkers, perhaps in part because his beloved sister, Marguerite de Navarre, was sympathetic to the movement—the historical record shows that, although at times moderate, the king aligned himself with the Catholic Church, and kept vigilant and restrictive watch over the movements of the reform.63 Although he was willing to tolerate the presence in his kingdom of Protestant humanists such as Gérard Roussel and Guillaume Farel until he understood the full force of their radical positions, François Ier still embraced Catholic orthodoxy and pledged to stamp out heresy in France.64 François’s tolerance for the “new religion,” fragile and wary at best, was destroyed after the “Affair of the Placards” in 1534. Both contemporary witnesses and modern historians have deemed the notorious “Affair” one of the most miscalculated steps in the development of French Protestantism as a social and religious movement. In a single night, hundreds of placards denouncing the rite of the Eucharist as exemplary of Catholic false doctrine were posted throughout Paris and beyond its walls, including on the door of the king’s own bedroom at Blois.65 It was a daring 61. Keith Luria examines patterns of coexistence between Catholics and Huguenots through the seventeenth century and argues convincingly that, although episodes of violence during the war have garnered much historical and scholarly attention, scholars also need to take account of the coexistence that occurred—often for extended periods of time—between confessional factions. See his Sacred Boundaries: Religious Coexistence and Conflict in Early-Modern France (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005). 62. The origin of the name “Huguenot” is still unclear, but the term was not used until around 1560. See Nicola Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980), 10, and Janet Gray, “The Origin of the Word Huguenot,” Sixteenth Century Journal 14, no. 3 (1983), 349–59. 63. Sutherland, Huguenot Struggle, 12. 64. On François Ier’s reign and the beginning of Protestant persecution in France, see Sutherland’s first chapter in Huguenot Struggle, 10–39. Sutherland argues that François’s “moderation” may have stemmed partly from his interest in the new learning, partly from his distraction by other political affairs, but that he showed a will to repress heresy in the kingdom as early as the 1520s. Diefendorf argues convincingly—against Sutherland’s premise that the Huguenots were asking simply to be recognized—that the nature of the early evangelical and Protestant teachings was revolutionary: early Protestants sought to reform the church from within. See her “Rites of Repair,” 35. 65. The author of the placards was Antoine Marcourt, a French-born Protestant pastor in Neuchâtel. The text of the placards in French is included in Gabrielle Berthoud, Antoine Marcourt, réformateur

18 Introduction move that appeared not only to attack Catholic doctrine in the most brazen fashion but also to suggest sedition in at least two ways. First, by hanging the placards at the royal palace, the perpetrators encroached upon the king’s very person. Second, and more theoretically insidious to both the Gallican church and the French monarchy, the content of the placards denied the coexistence of the sacred and temporal in the object of the Eucharist. This same concomitance was the core of the French monarchy, in which the king’s royal prerogative was seen as sacred rather than simply a temporal right.66 The reformers’ audacity proved too much for François to bear: he ordered an elaborate Catholic procession in Paris shortly after the Affair of the Placards that included the execution of several heretics, and thereafter his treatment of evangelicals and reformers became even more rigorous. If François Ier was severe toward Protestants in later years, his son, Henri II, was categorically hostile toward the “new religion” or “new opinions.” A far more conservative Catholic than his father had been, Henri endorsed ruthless punishments for reformers. Declarations of support for the Reformist cause were—as they had been under François Ier in the late 1530s and 1540s—judged to be not only heretical but also treasonous.67 The early years of Henri’s reign saw the institutionalization of what came to be known as the chambre ardente, or “burning chamber,” a special tribunal in the Parlement of Paris devoted exclusively to the persecution of heresy.68 Oppressive persecutions of Huguenots continued during the short reign of François II, under the influence of his ambitious uncles-in-law, the ultra-Catholic duc de Guise and his brother, the cardinal de Lorraine. Perhaps the most famous examples of these persecutions were the execution of the young, reform-sympathetic magistrate, Anne du Bourg, and the mass executions of Protestant collaborators involved in the notorious “Amboise conspiracy,” a Huguenot-led plot to kidnap the young king François II and his mother, and overthrow the Guises.69 et pamphlétaire: Du ‘Livres des marchands’ aux placards de 1534 (Geneva: Droz, 1973), 287–89. There is some scholarly dissension on whether François Ier was actually present at Blois when the placards were posted, or whether he was some miles away at Amboise; see Holt, French Wars, 18, and Sutherland, Huguenot Struggle, 28, for this point. The reformist Théodore de Bèze claimed that the king was at Blois, and lamented the affair as a misstep on the part of some overzealous radicals who did not listen to “wiser heads”: Bèze, Histoire ecclésiastique des églises réformées au royaume de France, vol. 1 (Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1883), 28–29; cf. Holt, French Wars, 18. 66. The French coronation ceremony was called the sacre, a term meaning both “consecration” and “coronation.” See Holt, French Wars, 7, 19. 67. Sutherland, Huguenot Struggle, 40–61. 68. For nuanced statistics on the rise in executions after the establishment of the chambre ardente, see William Monter, Judging the French Reformation: Heresy Trials by Sixteenth-Century Parlements (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 135–37. On the chambre, see also Sutherland, Huguenot Struggle, 42–44. 69. Many of the pivotal events that marked watershed moments in the French religious conflicts were memorialized by Jean Perrissin and Jacques Tortorel, who published their wood and copper

Introduction 19 Despite these severe measures—or perhaps, in part, because of them—the Reform continued to gain strength within certain regions of France and among certain populations. Paris and most of northern France remained strongly Catholic, but southern French cities and their surrounding regions saw a growing reformist population.70 Protestantism became increasingly popular among educated bourgeois, mercantile, and artisan trade families. Peasants in many regions remained Catholic, but there were notable French regions and towns in which Protestantism dominated every class, from rural peasants to the aristocracy. In these regions, Catholics were a minority who in turn felt the heavy weight of Protestant restrictions on their own religious practice. The question of religion also divided the French nobility, including those of the highest rank. Marguerite de Navarre, for instance, François Ier’s sister, clearly showed evangelical leanings beginning in the 1520s, although she remained officially Catholic. Her spiritual advisor was Guillaume Briçonnet, the head of the famous “Circle of Meaux,” which explored the new reformist teachings until the circle was dissolved in 1525, and its participants either fled France or, as in the case of Briçonnet, returned to the fold of the Catholic Church. After Marguerite’s marriage to Henri d’Albret, King of Navarre, her court in the south of France became a refuge for many writers, theologians, and intellectuals fleeing religious persecution, including Guillaume Farel, Clément Marot, François Rabelais, and Jacques Lefêvre d’Etaples, among others.71 Marguerite’s daughter, Jeanne d’Albret, openly declared her Protestantism as of 1560. While the religious inclinations of engravings of these events as the Quarante tableaux in 1569–70. Philip Benedict argues that Perrissin and Tortorel sought to give an objective account of these crucial events in their engravings, and that the Quarante tableaux represent an important point in the historiography of the French religious wars. See Benedict, Graphic History: The Wars, Massacres and Troubles of Tortorel and Perrissin (Geneva: Droz, 2007). Both Antoine de Bourbon and his brother, Louis, prince de Condé, were implicated in the Amboise conspiracy; the prince de Condé was saved from execution only by the death of François II. For a succinct summary of the Amboise conspiracy, see Holt, French Wars, 44–45, and Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 64–66. 70. Holt includes useful maps tracing the presence of French Protestant churches in French Wars, esp. 31. 71. Some of these writers and intellectuals were among the disbanded Meaux circle. On Marguerite’s evangelism, see Jonathan A. Reid, King’s Sister—Queen of Dissent: Marguerite of Navarre (1492–1549) and her Evangelical Network, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill 2009); see also A Companion to Marguerite de Navarre, ed. Gary Ferguson and Mary B. McKinley (Leiden: Brill, 2013), especially the different approaches of Reid (“Marguerite de Navarre and Evangelical Reform”) and Jean-Marie Le Gall (“Marguerite de Navarre: The Reasons for Remaining Catholic”). For a biographical and historical overview, see Patricia and Rouben Cholakian, Marguerite de Navarre (1492–1549): Mother of the Renaissance (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005). On the spiritual correspondence between Guillaume Briçonnet and Marguerite, see Katherine Kong, “The Pursuit of Spiritual Quietude in the Correspondence of Marguerite de Navarre and Guillaume Briçonnet,” in Lettering the Self in Medieval and Early Modern France (Woodbridge, UK, and Rochester, NY: Boydell and Brewer, 2010), 150–90.

20 Introduction Jeanne’s husband, Antoine de Bourbon, were somewhat wavering, his younger brother Louis, the prince de Condé, was, like Jeanne, openly Protestant.72 These aristocratic and familial divisions were politically critical. Antoine and Louis were the most preeminent princes of the blood. As first prince of the blood, moreover, Antoine—who had become king consort of Navarre after his marriage to Jeanne—was in a position to assume authority during Charles IX’s minority. In the absence of royal uncles, many Protestants argued, he should rightly hold the regency of France outright, given his proximity to the throne. That Antoine agreed to assist and advise Catherine as lieutenant general in a customary capacity, alongside the privy council, is largely due to Catherine’s own hard bargaining.73 By the time Charles IX ascended the throne, both the ruling elite of France and French subjects were deeply divided along religious lines. It was clear that there was to be no easy solution to what many called “the troubles,” and what Catherine herself referred to as “these confusions.” On what side did Catherine fall in this religious divide? That she remained an avowed Catholic cannot be questioned. As for the negotiations that she conducted between Catholic and Huguenot parties, it is perhaps safest to claim that she was outwardly, at least according to her letters, guided by political moderation—and by an interest in keeping France and the nobility unified for the Valois line. This is not to say that she was not pious, as many contemporary pamphlets claimed.74 But Catherine’s repeated efforts to reconcile the two parties seem to have been motivated more by a policy of moderation—and perhaps one of political expediency for the sake of the monarchy—than by a personal religious conviction.75 On Marguerite’s evangelism and the circle of Meaux, see Henry Heller, “Marguerite of Navarre and the Reformers of Meaux,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 33, no. 2 (1972), 271–310. 72. Jeanne d’Albret declared her Protestantism formally in 1560, but there is evidence that she favored Protestantism much earlier. See Nancy L. Roelker, Queen of Navarre: Jeanne d’Albret, 1528–1572 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 127–30. 73. Antoine de Bourbon proved more conciliatory toward Catherine when she showed herself to be sympathetic to his claims in Spanish Navarre, and when she offered to make him lieutenant general of the kingdom. As Crawford notes, the privy council, with Catherine in attendance, formulated the government such that the “king of Navarre as first prince of the blood [would] assist [Catherine] in accordance with the custom favoring male relatives as advisors.” See Crawford, Perilous Performances, 39–40. Catherine’s letters surrounding the formation of the regency show the extent to which the King of Navarre’s role was a particularly vexed and critical topic for her; that he be relegated to “advisor” and not acknowledged officially as regent was a crucial distinction for her. See particularly her letters 12–15 in this volume. 74. See the Discours merveilleux and, in the Appendix, selections from other contemporary pamphlets in this volume. 75. Perhaps some of the best evidence that Catherine sought moderation is that she did not continue the aggressive persecutory policies of Henri II. Sutherland argues that the persecutions under François

Introduction 21 The historical record suggests repeatedly that Catherine adopted a predominantly conciliatory role between the factions and, moreover, that she was regularly portrayed as a moderate and peacemaking figure. To cite only a few examples, according to Louis Régnier de la Planche, it was Catherine who, coming out of mourning for the recently deceased Henri II, put a halt to the Guises’ wildly unpopular persecutions of the Protestants accused of sedition in the “Amboise conspiracy.”76 In 1561, Catherine organized the colloquy at Poissy in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to orchestrate a theological reconciliation between French Catholics and Protestants.77 Taking a different tack two years later, in 1563, Catherine had Charles declare his majority. She then embarked with the young king on a royal tour of France to take stock of the situation in the various provinces and also to show off the king to his subjects: Catherine, ever aware of the role that spectacle could play in statecraft, hoped that the tangible appearance of the king could help unify the differing factions in the name of loyalty to their sovereign.78 Ronsard celebrated Catherine as a “shepherd,” whose gentle and noble heart could protect her flock and appease the rancor between the two camps. The entry celebrating the marriage of Charles IX to Elizabeth of Austria depicted Catherine as a mediating figure working selflessly to keep France unified.79 And Catherine’s Ier and Henri II were tantamount to an “inquisition parlementaire” (or inquisition initiated and carried out by the Parlement, and supported ecclesiastically, rather than initiated and executed by the Gallican or Roman church). See her Chapter 2, “Was There an Inquisition in Reformation France?” in Princes, Politics and Religion, 1547–1589 (London: Hambledon Press, 1984), 13–30. 76. Louis Régnier de la Planche, Histoire de l’estat de France, tant de la république que de la religion, sous le règne de François II (1576) in Choix de Chroniques, ed. J.A.C. Buchon (Paris: A. Desrez, 1836), 66–67; cf. Crawford, Perilous Performances, 22. 77. The colloquy was collaboratively initiated by Catherine and the French chancellor, Michel de l’Hôpital. 78. The Royal Tour of France by Charles IX and Catherine de’Medici: Festivals and Entries, 1564–6, ed. Victor E. Graham and W. McAllister Johnson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 3. 79. “Mais vous, Royne tres-sage, en voyant ce discord, / Pouvez, en commandant, les mettre tous d’accord …” and following. In Pierre de Ronsard, “Discours des misères de ce temps. A la Royne, Mere du Roy, Catherine de Médicis. Discours à la royne,” in Oeuvres complètes de Ronsard, vol. 2, ed. Gustave Cohen (Paris: Gallimard, 1950), 865–72; Bref et sommaire recueil de ce qui a esté faict, & de l’ordre tenüe à la ioyeuse & triumphante entree de tres-puissant, tres-magnanime & tres-chrestien Prince Charles IX. de ce nom Roy de France, en sa bonne ville & cité de Paris, capitale de son Royaume, le Mardy sixiesme jour de Mars: Auec le couronnement de tres-haute, tres-illustre & tres-excellente Princesse Madame Elizabeth d’Austriche son espouse, le Dimanche vingtcinquiesme (Paris: Denis du Pré, for Olivier Codoré, 1572), 13v. The entry included several visual icons meant to represent maternal fecundity—images no doubt meant to celebrate both Catherine’s unifying power under the auspices of her maternity, as well as Elizabeth of Austria’s anticipated maternal role as the new queen. Cf. Maurice Scève’s 1549 album celebrating the entry of Henri II and Catherine de Médicis in Lyon in 1548. Commissioned by the civic leaders of Lyon, the album reveals a tension between the representation of Catherine’s queenly maternal role and the powerful role played at court by Diane de Poitiers,

22 Introduction own letters attest on several occasions to her efforts to reconcile disparate views and mollify bitter rivalries between individuals and among factions.80 And yet, Catherine’s conciliatory posture and efforts—first as regent and then as an informal but powerful counselor to Charles IX and, later, Henri III— could not staunch the rising tide of religious violence. Violence perpetrated by both factions and across class lines had already escalated precipitously in the 1550s. Recent scholarly work has shown that much of this violence was provoked by a fundamental difference in Protestant and Catholic conceptions of the construction of community and what constituted faith. Protestants, for example, desecrated Catholic churches and symbols that they perceived to be idolatrous. Catholics responded with processions and purification rites to repair the bonds of their community, and insisted that Protestants participate. Actions by both often led to bloodshed.81 By the early 1560s, the situation had reached a fever pitch, likely beyond the control of any governing body. The first civil war (1562–63) was in part a response to one of the countless episodes of unfathomable violence, known as the massacre at Wassy. As in many episodes of violence during this period, the exact events that led to this massacre are unclear. On March 1, 1562, the duc de Guise was riding toward the town of Wassy en route to his estates when he evidently came upon a congregation of worshipping Protestants.82 Whether the massive slaughter of Protestants that ensued was unprovoked, as the Huguenots claimed, or whether the duc de Guise and his men were the first to be attacked, as the Guises maintained, is unknown, although the crown and the Parlement of Paris ultimately endorsed Guise’s innocence.83 What is certain is that at least several dozen Protestants were killed. As a result, both Catholic and Protestant factions Henri’s royal mistress. See Leah Chang, “Spectacle, Sublimation, and Civic Pride in Scève’s “L’Entree de la Royne,” Romance Quarterly 54, no. 2 (Spring 2007), 124–35. 80. See, for instance, her letter 13 to the bishop of Limoges, and letters 30 and 31, composed during her time in negotiating with the Protestants in what has come to be known as the “conference at Nérac.” 81. Natalie Zemon Davis has shown how both sides of the confessional divide were apt to respond with mob violence in place of a government action in response to various perceived infractions; see her “Rites of Violence,” cited above in note 59. Barbara Diefendorf convincingly argues that while Protestant violence tended to target religious spaces and iconography, Catholics tended to respond against the person of the Protestant, although Protestants too were guilty of bloodshed; see Diefendorf, “Rites of Repair,” esp. 40–44. 82. After the Parlement of Paris registered the Edict of January (1562), it was legal for Protestants to gather for worship without interference. 83. The massacre at Wassy is one of the events memorialized by the engravers Perrissin and Tortorel, cited above. The duc de Guise maintained his innocence until his death in 1563 and insisted that his actions—provoked by Protestant aggression—were simply an effort to protect himself, his men, and his wife and children from attack. Elizabeth A.R. Brown gives a synopsis of the crown’s and Parlement’s position on Wassy, as well as documentation regarding Guise’s own attestation of his innocence, in

Introduction 23 began to amass troops. Catherine’s attempts to appease the two sides failed.84 The first civil war lasted until February of the following year and ended with the Edict of Amboise, which, like the previous Edict of January, allowed the practice of Protestantism in the kingdom, but with notable restrictions.85 The calm, forced at best, proved short-lived. Civil war raged at regular intervals until well after Catherine’s death in a progressively more fraught and complex political and religious climate.86 Catherine and the crown increasingly garnered the animosity of both Huguenots and Catholics and later, under Henri III, the ultraconservative Catholic League, which endorsed the complete elimination of Protestantism in France, often by violent means. Explicit civil war continued to be waged until Catherine’s death and the assassination of Henri III, both in 1589. The ascension of Henri of Navarre to the throne as Henri IV did not end the conflict. The Edict of Nantes, issued by Henri IV in 1598, did force both factions to put down their arms and achieved an extended peace, although it was not an absolute stopping point for the wars. Episodes of coexistence, as well as episodes of oppression and violence between Protestants and Catholics, continued throughout the seventeenth century. Why was Catherine de Médicis—alongside her sons Charles IX and Henri III—unable to curtail the waves of violence and put a stop to the religious wars? Why did the violence escalate beyond her control, in spite of her policies of moderation? Did Catherine underestimate the force of religious conviction?87 Did she misunderstand the extent to which Catholic and Protestant tensions were firmly grounded in cultural as well as religious differences among the French population? Did she misconstrue the extent to which the population, rural, urban, and noble, would either bend to aristocratic influence and patronage networks or capitulate under the force of law? Did she misunderstand the nature of civic allegiances, or local character and alliances, and assume or simply hope that loyalties to the king and crown would win over the hearts of both the nobility and the people? Did she think there was room to accommodate a different set of religious beliefs and social practices, without sacrificing the central tenet of the French monarchy, that is, une foi, une loi, un roi (one faith, one law, one king)? And finally, given her known record of conciliation, why were her mediating efforts not more appreciated? Was Jean du Tillet and the French Wars of Religion: Five Tracts, 1562–1569, ed. Brown (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1994) p. 33–34, esp. n. 81. 84. Catherine secretly tried to use the prince de Condé to reconcile the two sides, but ultimately failed. See her letters 17–20 in this volume. 85. Sutherland includes an appendix with the texts of all edicts of pacification issued during the Wars of Religion in Huguenot Struggle, 333–72. 86. Although the Edict of Nantes (1598), issued under Henri IV, has traditionally been seen as a stopping point for the wars, Holt (French Wars) makes the argument that they continued until 1629. 87. This question paraphrases one of Crawford’s own assessments in Perilous Performances, 51.

24 Introduction her stance of moderation simply unacceptable in a time of bitter partisanship, deep religious divide, and wildly escalating violence? These are difficult, if not impossible, questions to answer; as extensive as they are, Catherine’s own letters—necessarily official documents in which she had to adopt certain postures—offer only a glimpse into the depth of her understanding of the religious and political situation in France. For many of the events and royal policies that defined the French civil wars, we can only speculate based on the evidence we have about what resided in Catherine’s heart and what spurred certain royal actions. Since our objective in the present collection is to juxtapose various portraits of Catherine as queen mother as they emerged over the course of her career, many of the questions posed above lie beyond the scope of this volume. However, such questions point to the immense political and social predicament in which Catherine found herself as queen mother and regent, and to the various social and political forces that governed Catherine’s own rhetorical and diplomatic postures, as well as the responses—diplomatic, polemic, and panegyric—to those postures. Of the many atrocities committed during the French religious wars, it was the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres in 1572, in the wake of the third civil war, that did the most to ensure an irreparable rift between Catholics and Protestants.88 And the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres have left the deepest imprint on Catherine’s historical reputation as queen mother and regent—no event has been more responsible in ensuring her legacy as the “Black Queen.”89 As in the case of the 88. Although it is conventional to refer to the “St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre” in the singular, the episode was not limited to a single event, but also included mass killings in the provinces in the weeks following the first wave of killings in Paris. For this reason, it has seemed logical to us to follow Holt’s example and to refer to the “St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres” in the plural. 89. Modern scholars and biographers have worked to undo that legacy, although the negative portrait of Catherine de Médicis remains the dominant one in the popular imagination. Her reputation as Machiavellian and dissimulative was established as early as the seventeenth century, and is in evidence in contemporary fiction. See Leah Chang, “Blushing and Legibility in La Princesse de Clèves,” Romance Studies 30, no. 1 (January 2012), 17–18. For examples of efforts to rehabilitate Catherine’s reputation, see Nicola Sutherland, “The Legend of the Wicked Italian Queen,” and two more recent biographies appealing to both a scholarly and popular audience: Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, and Leonie Frieda, Catherine de Medici: Renaissance Queen of France (New York: Harper Perennial, 2006). Catherine’s daughter, Marguerite, was also the subject of pamphlet propaganda that shaped her historical reception as the insatiably lustful “Queen Margot.” Eliane Viennot and Robert J. Sealy, S.J., argue that Marguerite’s nefarious persona developed alongside Bourbon efforts to cast aspersions on the Valois dynasty. Marguerite’s negative portrait has had, arguably, even greater traction in the popular imagination than Catherine’s thanks in part to popular literature such as Alexandre Dumas’s La Reine Margot (1845) and Patrice Chéreau’s 1994 film based on the Dumas novel. These same works also deploy a portrait of Catherine as Machiavellian. Both Sealy and Viennot mention negative portraits of Catherine as the backdrop to the myths surrounding Marguerite. See Sealy’s The Myth of the Reine Margot: Toward the Elimination of a Legend (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1994), which focuses

Introduction 25 massacre at Wassy, historians are unsure about what set the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres in motion. They do agree, however, on a few fundamental facts. The setting for the massacre in Paris was the scene of a wedding. The groom was the Protestant Henri of Navarre, scion of the Bourbon family and first prince of the blood, the son of Jeanne d’Albret and Antoine de Bourbon. The bride was the Catholic Marguerite de Valois, youngest daughter of Catherine de Médicis and Henri II. The marriage had been concocted by the crown—with Jeanne de Navarre’s reluctant but eventual consent—in an effort, once again, to bring the warring factions together.90 The marriage took a different strategic tack to peace negotiations and edicts of pacification. It was dynastically expedient given that there was no Valois heir, for it would ally the reigning house of Valois to the next house in line to the French throne. But the marriage also carried obvious symbolic religious significance—perhaps a wedding could achieve what successive edicts and peace treaties had not yet been able to do. Protestant and Catholic nobles gathered in Paris for the wedding, and the marriage was performed with some haste on August 18.91 It was an uncomfortable scene, as rancorous hostilities among the Parisian population—heightened by perceived affronts to beloved Catholic icons in the months preceding the wedding—were aggravated by crowded conditions and unseasonably hot weather for a Parisian summer.92 On August 22, while returning to his lodgings after a meeting at the Louvre, Admiral Gaspard de Coligny—advisor to Charles IX and head of the Protestant faction—was shot and injured in a failed assassination plot. It is unclear who ordered the assassination. Two days later, on August 24, the admiral was murdered by the duc de Guise and his men, and his body thrown from the window, decapitated, and dragged through the city. Whether the massacre that followed the admiral’s murder was explicitly ordered by Charles IX or not will probably never be known for sure: Charles himself both disavowed and claimed responsibility for the killings in Paris in the days after the massacre in what was, no doubt, a bungled attempt by the crown to present a narrative for the violence that would best serve its interests both in France and

on the vituperative pamphlet known as “Le Divorce satyrique” as the origin of the myth, and Viennot, Marguerite de Valois: Histoire d’une femme, histoire d’un mythe (Paris: Editions Payot, 1993). 90. On Jeanne’s begrudging agreement and intense negotiations around the marriage contract, see Roelker, Queen of Navarre, Chapter 13, “Confrontation: The Marriage Treaty, September 1571–April 1572,” 354–83. 91. Catherine’s letter 18 in this volume shows that the marriage was performed without the pope’s dispensation regarding consanguinity between Henri IV and Marguerite, due to the urgency of the situation. 92. Barbara Diefendorf discusses these affronts to Catholic symbols in “Prologue to a Massacre: Popular Unrest in Paris, 1557–1572,” American Historical Review 90 (1985): 1067–91.

26 Introduction abroad.93 Many historians have traditionally blamed Catherine and the Guises for Coligny’s assassination and the ensuing massacre, while others have tried to exculpate Catherine, arguing that such a murder would have completely reversed the policies of moderation advocated by the queen mother up to that point. Still others have argued that the truth lies somewhere in the middle: if Charles and Catherine did not first conceive of Coligny’s assassination or of the killing of the Protestant leadership afterward for fear of retribution, they nonetheless probably supported the plan.94 The killings of Protestants that began in Paris on August 24, however, seem to have quickly transformed into a general massacre. Contemporary accounts by the crown and by witnesses differ on the motivation for the killings. The monarchy first claimed that the admiral’s assassination was due to a personal Guise vendetta, and subsequently asserted that the elimination of the Protestant leadership and their followers was to thwart an act of sedition that threatened Charles and the French crown; Protestants claimed that the victims were killed for purely religious reasons, as a way to exterminate the Huguenot population.95 93. See letters 23 and 23 bis. in this collection. Charles’s letter to the Count Palatine, August 31, 1572, in addition to his letters to various ambassadors, may be found in “Documens authentiques sur la Saint Barthélemy,” Revue rétrospective, 1st ser., 5 (1834), 363–64. See also “Lettre écrite, par ordre de Charles IX, aux cantons suisses protestants après la Saint-Barthélemy,” Bulletin de la société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 3 (1885): 274–78. On September 4, 1572, ten days after the beginning of the massacre, Charles ordered a solemn procession in Paris to celebrate the “defeat of the Huguenots”; Barbara Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross, 176. 94. Charles, as king, likely issued—in some form or another—the final order to target the Huguenot leadership. Diefendorf argues that the decision, however it was made, was impulsive rather than carefully planned, and probably out of panic over the possibilities of Huguenot reprisals after the assassination of Coligny. Diefendorf points out (Beneath the Cross, 96) that responsibility for the decision is less important than its consequences: “[I]t does not really matter who it was that convinced Charles to order the Huguenot leaders killed. The queen mother, Anjou, the comte de Retz, and the duc de Guise have been variously accused; the truth will never be known. Everyone who was party to these events had reason later to lie, to present his or her own role in the best possible light, and there is no independent, impartial evidence … assigning responsibility for the decision is less important than analyzing its consequences.” Holt also argues (French Wars, 84–86, 91) that, although there is no definitive proof, it seems likely that the general massacre could not have been part of the original plan. 95. Simon Goulart’s painstaking collection of eyewitness accounts of the atrocities against Protestants, with a specific focus on the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, generated his Mémoires de l’estat de France sous Charles neufiesme (1577). Robert Kingdon argues that Goulart’s volume was deliberately compiled to circulate widely the argument that the massacres’ victims were killed for their religious views, and not because they threatened an act of sedition; see Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 1572–1576 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988). Although the massacres have been rightly construed as a conflict between Catholics and Protestants, it is important to note that others were caught in the tide of violence. The uncontrolled mob violence also allowed personal vendettas and other ethnic intolerances and power plays to express themselves. See, for example, Henry Heller’s Chapter 4, “The Italians and the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre,”

Introduction 27 It does seem clear that if the killings began as a sanctioned royal order of limited scope, they quickly escalated into an uncontrolled act of mob violence in the days that followed Coligny’s murder. One famous story—which claims that even the duc de Guise, who was responsible for the admiral’s murder, ultimately sheltered Protestants from the angry mobs—suggests that the violence escalated far beyond what any of the original plotters, whoever they were, had imagined.96 Even if one estimates the number of victims conservatively, the statistics are grim: up to three thousand Parisians were killed, and the massacre spread to cities in the provinces in the weeks and months following, claiming an additional two to three thousand victims.97 If, until recent years, it has been commonplace both among scholars and in the popular imagination to lay the blame at least in part—and even squarely— on Catherine’s shoulders, the accusation is not a modern invention: its origins are easily traceable to the period just after the massacre. One prime example of the effort to target Catherine can be seen in François Dubois’s iconic image, Le Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy (Fig. 2), painted some time between 1572 and 1584. That painting, whose details suggest that Dubois was either an eyewitness to the massacre in Paris or knew someone who was, portrays in graphic detail the murder of Coligny and the mass slaughter that ensued in the city after his assassination. In the background, hovering over a pile of naked corpses, is the unmistakable figure of the queen mother. Clad in her usual black, the figure takes on a distinctly sinister significance. Dubois appears to be accusing the queen mother of overseeing, and perhaps ordering, the slaughter of innocent martyrs—significantly, among them, women and babies. The queen mother is thus effectively and ironically transformed into a monstrous murderer of other mothers. Other media too, most notably pamphlets like the Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportemens de Catherine de Médicis, Roine Mère (of which we include significant portions in the present volume), were employed in what appears to have been a synchronized Protestant effort to attack not only the French monarchy but specifically the queen mother in the wake of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres.98 80–92, in Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-Century France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), which discusses the deliberate targeting of Italians during the massacres. 96. On Guise’s efforts to save Protestants during the general massacre, see Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross, 104. The Guises were not disinterested in the affair, however, as they evidently sought to rebaptize as Catholics some of the fugitives they harbored. 97. Philip Benedict, “The Saint Bartholomew’s Massacres in the Provinces,” The Historical Journal 21, no. 2 (1978), 205–25; Holt, French Wars, 95. Barbara Diefendorf ’s The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre: A Brief History with Documents (New York: Bedford /St. Martin’s Press, 2009) offers translations in extract of a number of primary source documents, both Catholic and Protestant, on the massacres. 98. See, for instance, the collected texts (including the Discours merveilleux targeting Catherine) in Simon Goulart, Mémoires de l’estat de France sous Charles neufiesme, cited above in note 95. Its publication and dissemination were intended to circulate the Protestant narrative.

28 Introduction Efforts to demonize Catherine through images such as Dubois’s Massacre and texts such as the Discours merveilleux were ultimately successful. Although twentieth and twenty-first century scholars and biographers have worked to resuscitate Catherine’s historical persona, the image of Catherine as an evil, Machiavellian usurper has stuck in the popular imagination through the present day. It is not uncommon to find scholarly passages like the following on the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, which attributes to Catherine actions that the historical record has yet to prove decisively: On 22 August, the morning after the end of the wedding festivities, an assassin (probably hired by Catherine de Médicis) fired two shots from his harquebus and wounded Coligny. From that point on an inexorable chain of events unfolded: guards were placed around the Huguenot living quarters, militia were armed, and rumors ran wild. The next day, Catherine and her advisers decided to order the execution of the leaders of the Huguenot party. The king, despite his personal admiration and affection for Coligny, was persuaded to go along with the plan. Toward midnight, before the king could change his mind, Catherine ordered the tocsin to be sounded, and the massacre began. Instead of a few dozen noblemen, hundreds of Protestants were killed, as a feverish thirst for blood swept the city. The killing and looting continued for days. In the provinces similar massacres occurred, the last one as late as October. Estimates of the total number of victims range between 12,000 and 100,000.99 The passage above is a modern-day portrait of Catherine. It perpetuates a certain position on history—that Catherine was largely to blame for the killings, and that Charles was merely persuaded to go along with her plan—that can be traced back to propaganda published in the wake of the massacres. The particular passage cited above appears at the beginning of a longer essay about literature surrounding the Wars of Religion in France; the information on the massacres, in other words, is not the focus of the text, but rather part of the contextual information. Catherine’s reputation as a ruthless murderer of French subjects, then, is so ingrained in the popular imagination that a reader can readily accept such a passage without question and without evidentiary support. The accusation that Catherine was responsible for the massacre of thousands of French subjects is a deadly serious one, one that requires more specific substantiation than scholars 99. Ullrich Langer, “1572, 24 August: Poetry and Action,” in A New History of French Literature, ed. Denis Hollier (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 231. Langer’s objective is not to incriminate Catherine; however, this is part of a narrative that is communicated in the transmission of other topics surrounding the massacres and the Wars of Religion.

Introduction 29 have been able to provide. And yet, even if the specificities around an event such as the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres were once known hundreds of years ago, those details have largely been lost; in their place, a more romanticized image of the players—Catherine chief among them—has come to the fore. As the passage above suggests, the portrait-making of a figure like Catherine de Médicis may occur as much in contextualizing and ancillary moments as it does in texts focusing predominantly on her as queen and regent. It is perhaps in such scholarly moments that we can see the extent to which particular portraits—conciliatory vs. murderous, maternally invested vs. ambitiously Machiavellian, etc.—continue to be perpetuated, consumed, and reified as historical fact through the present day. Why did one given portrait of Catherine de Médicis win over the other? This is a question that implicitly ties together the texts included in Portraits of the Queen Mother. The texts presented here are explicitly and extensively focused on Catherine de Médicis, whether they be letters composed in her name (Catherine’s own letters), diplomatic reports assessing her and the state of affairs in France (Venetian ambassadors’ reports), tracts intended to incriminate her (the Discours merveilleux), or panegyric striving to exonerate her (Brantôme’s “Discours sur la Reyne”). These texts touch on the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, but also on a range of other episodes and moments. Some are discrete events during this time of religious unrest and civil war in France, such as the deaths of Catherine’s husband and children, the formation of Catherine’s regencies, and the transition from one monarch to another. These texts also convey more intangible negotiations and sentiments: for instance, relations with foreign governments, negotiations between Protestants and Catholics, as well as Catherine’s love for her children, her fears for the monarchy and the kingdom, and her own assessment of the risks she was willing to take to safeguard the dynasty. Although recent scholarship has explored a more neutral if not outright exonerating view of Catherine, even as her nefarious reputation has persisted in the popular and scholarly imagination, it is worth noting that, as the French civil wars became increasingly violent and partisan in the second half of the sixteenth century, Catherine’s responses to this violence—responses that appear to have fueled civil conflict and partisanship even as they tried to contain the violence— were, in the long view of history, ever shifting. Although it is not surprising for a ruler’s political positions to change over the course of a decades-long career, the range of Catherine’s actions in response to both political and religious events and conflicts has been frequently polarizing and difficult to reconcile, both for her contemporaries and for modern scholars. How, for instance, could the Catherine who seemed to stand silently by her husband’s aggressive persecution of Huguenots work so ardently to reconcile Huguenots and Catholics during the early 1560s with the colloquy of Poissy and the Edict of January? How could that same Catherine then tolerate the violent massacre of Protestants in the early 1570s?

30 Introduction And how could she desire, as she claimed, both peace in the kingdom among differing factions and the unification of a Catholic France? Vexed political circumstances urgently demanded a decisive and commanding royal response, and it is not surprising that Catherine, an agile and habile ruler, shaped royal policy to meet the needs of her troubled times. As the texts assembled in this volume attest, Catherine’s political portraiture—both in her own hands and at the hands of others—was also very much in flux throughout the course of her career, as her public persona changed alongside her political policies to accommodate radically shifting circumstances and competing demands and exigencies.

Portraits of the Queen Mother: Introduction to the Texts The selection of texts in this volume is generically heterogeneous. Although they represent merely a fraction of the enormous archive surrounding Catherine de Médicis, and by no means offer an exhaustive or definitive collection, the texts translated here suggest some of the range of materials that engage in the portraitmaking of the queen mother by diverse hands. Catherine de Médicis’s own letters, contemporary Venetian diplomatic reports, the anonymous Discours merveilleux, Brantôme’s “Discours sur la Reyne,” and the invective letters and pamphlets collected in the Appendix assemble diverse and often heated rhetoric in the service of the same goal: painting a particular and no doubt partisan portrait of the queen mother. These texts describe very different Catherines, in some accounts modest, chaste, and eager to please, in others bold, blunt, and canny; one text has her laughing at a joke about her weight.100 Several of the texts participate in discussions of Catherine’s lineage, genealogy, inherited traits, gender, and maternity in ways that reinforce the key terms and events over which her regency and the legitimacy of her authority were performed, interpreted, and contested for both domestic and international audiences. Many of these texts refer to two moments that emerge as particularly salient focal points in Catherine’s representation: her first regency under Charles in 1560, and the 1572 St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres. Offering varying depictions, these works suggest a textual game of mirrors—with no “neutral” portrayal of Catherine and her regency, readers are left to sift through vituperative and encomiastic tropes. At a distance of several centuries, this offers a critical perspective from which to examine the concerns of this turbulent moment more fully, to investigate generic tropes employed by writers of the period to describe their troubled times, and, most importantly, to interrogate the ways in which the queen mother’s authority was rhetorically constructed. These texts also allow us to consider how sixteenth-century portraits of Catherine de Médicis have had a lasting and undeniable effect on her reception as a queen and as 100. Brantôme, “Discours,” in Recueil des Dames, 55–56.

Introduction 31 a mother—an effect that, although rooted in the popular imagination, remains nonetheless very concrete and real.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis, Selections

Catherine de Médicis’s letters appear first in this collection of texts, yet this placement is not intended to suggest neutrality or transparency. Catherine “in her own words” is no less a political and rhetorical construct than Catherine at the hands of her detractors and admirers. In fact, although these letters all bear her name and signature, and although all are composed in a “voice” that may be attributed to Catherine in part because of that signature, the Catherine of the letters is in many ways the product of a collaboration. Certain grammatical, syntactical, and orthographical indications suggest that she penned many of the letters herself, but as was customary much of the correspondence is the work of the numerous secretaries, notaries, and other agents in her employ who either composed the letters by dictation or prepared them, based on her opinions and counsel but seasoned by their own advice and rhetorical polish, for her eventual approval and signature (Figs. 3–5). If these letters represent Catherine’s “voice,” it is a voice that is nuanced according to the personal, political, or diplomatic situation that each letter addresses. It is a voice that is the construction of several hands and minds, and that is not always unified in its style or opinions. If the persona of the queen mother that emerges from the letters can sometimes seem fragmented and inconsistent—sometimes sincere and personal, sometimes formal and authoritative, sometimes diplomatically submissive—this may be due as much to the composite and collaborative nature of early modern letter-writing as to the vicissitudes of a changing political climate. In addition to taking into account the heightened and particularly complicated political context of sixteenth-century France, it is important to understand that letters in the pre-modern period were for various reasons difficult to guarantee as personal and private.101 Since they were often written by dictation to secretaries, letters written in one’s own hand were uncommon, and a signal mark of esteem and even intimacy.102 In his account of Catherine’s daily life at court, Brantôme reports on her epistolary practice that she “replied in her own hand— 101. For a royal writer, this “public” quality could at times be counted on: Elizabeth McCartney reports that in records of parlementary proceedings, Catherine de Médicis’s letters were “routinely read aloud to the assembled magistrates, who then held deliberations on subjects of importance.” See “In the Queen’s Words: Perceptions of Regency Government Gleaned from the Correspondence of Catherine de Médicis,” in Women’s Letters Across Europe, 1400–1700: Form and Persuasion, ed. Jane Couchman and Ann Crabb (Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2005), 207–22, here 218. 102. According to Giles Constable, the practice of writing letters in one’s own hand might have been a late medieval development; its use was attested by the fifteenth century. See Letters and LetterCollections, Typologie des sources du Moyen Age occidental 17 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1976), 42–44.

32 Introduction that is, to the most important people and those closest to her.”103 Letters were sent via poste, couriers who carried mail on horseback and who were often messengers as well, bearing important oral communications to supplement or guarantee the written letter.104 Catherine’s letter to her daughter Elisabeth of December 1560 describes and performs this convention, perhaps feigning an inability, difficulty, or even unwillingness to pen a longer missive: I am charging this porter with telling you many things on my behalf, which will keep me from having to write you a long letter.105 In some instances, highly sensitive matters were communicated solely orally, and the written missive served as a means of guaranteeing the reliability of the message and the credibility of the messenger.106 In fact, it was frequently the reputation of the messenger, even more than the material letter, that reinforced the authenticity of the message he delivered. Often these same messengers waited for replies and carried them back.107 Letters were powerful tools for shaping messages and personas, but they were also vulnerable to interception, tampering, and even misinterpretation.108 The possibility of misinterpretation might be the reason for the noticeable silence in Catherine’s letters regarding politically explosive and historically significant events like the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, which fueled the circulation of 103. Brantôme, “Discours,” 56. 104. For example, Catherine’s first letter in our volume, “September 2, 1533,” gives a brief account of her recent itinerary, and then specifies: “The present messenger will be Baptiste, who will give you a fuller account in person.” See also, among others, letter 12, “December 19, 1560,” and letter 16, “April 21, 1561,” the latter of which instructs: “advise me using this messenger … he can secretly make known to me the resolution that you have drawn from this.” 105. Letter 11 in this volume. 106. This was a practice dating at least as far back as the Middle Ages. On its classical antecedents, see James J. Murphy, “Ars dictaminis: The Art of Letter-Writing,” 194–95, in his Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974; reprint, Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2001). For a thorough overview of medieval letter-writing culture, see Constable’s Letters and LetterCollections; on the oral aspect of epistolary culture, see Constable, 13–14, and Martin Camargo, “Where’s the Brief?: The Ars Dictaminis and Reading/Writing Between the Lines,” Disputatio 1 (1996), 3–7 and passim. 107. See, for example, Catherine’s letter 16 in this volume. 108. As David LaGuardia notes, letters could be problematic because their reception could not always be controlled: “Noble women … realized that exercising their power meant that they were compelled to write, to enunciate, and to disseminate letters, memoirs, and speeches whose meanings and interpretations were often beyond their control, even when they wrote them with their own hands.” See LaGuardia, “Two Queens, a Dog, and a Purloined Letter: On Memory as a Discursive Phenomenon in Late Renaissance France” (forthcoming).

Introduction 33 pamphlets excoriating her part in them. Perhaps with this epistolary vulnerability in mind, Catherine diligently kept copies of her correspondence: in replying to a letter, she made a copy of her reply and kept it alongside the letter it answered.109 One striking example of this is a set of letters that Catherine addressed to Louis de Bourbon, prince de Condé, on the eve of the first War of Religion, in which she portrays her own vulnerability and that of the young king. Using studied rhetoric, she asserts Condé’s loyalty to both herself and Charles to persuade Condé to take action.110 She also sent a copy of these letters to the bishop of Rennes, along with notes explaining her motivations. This epistolary doubling shows that Catherine considered letters to be important rhetorical and political tools; it also shows that the copying of letters could be an instrumental part of political culture. This same episode also reveals the dangers of epistolary culture: once a letter was sent, its circulation and reception were beyond a writer’s control, and the material conditions of epistolary culture made it difficult to absolutely guarantee private letters. As it happened, Condé later shared Catherine’s letters widely, confirming that the restricted circulation of letters could not be guaranteed, and teaching Catherine an embarrassing lesson about the uses and limits of epistolary culture. Regardless of the motivation, the practice of copying letters is likely the reason Catherine’s voluminous correspondence survives—in other words, we are reading the copies she made of her outgoing correspondence. It is also possible that Catherine’s vast correspondence was shaped by a particular strand of sixteenth-century epistolary culture. According to Janet Gurkin Altman, “the publication of missive letters coincided with the rise of national consciousness.”111 That is, French writers cultivated the art of prose epistolography to exalt the French language and develop its literary arts. One of Catherine’s secretaries, Etienne du Tronchet, participated in this culture by publishing his own correspondence.112 Given the clear involvement of her secretaries in the production of Catherine’s

109. Brantôme, 56: “I saw her one time, for an entire afternoon, write in her own hand twenty long pairs (paires) of letters.” 110. See Catherine’s letters 17–20 in this volume. 111. Janet Gurkin Altman, “1725: The Politics of Epistolary Art,” in A New History of French Literature, ed. Denis Hollier, 416. That Catherine had been raised and educated in Italy would have made her familiar with efforts to develop a national literature in the vernacular. 112. Altman, “The Politics of Epistolary Art,” 416. Du Tronchet’s collection saw over twenty editions between 1569 and 1623: Mary Saint Francis Sullivan, Etienne de Tronchet: auteur forézien du XVIe siècle. Etude biographique et littéraire (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1931), cited in “Secrétaires for the People? Model Letters of the Ancien Régime: Between Court Literature and Popular Chapbooks,” in Correspondence: Models of Letter-Writing from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth Century, ed. Roger Chartier, Alain Boureau, and Cécile Dauphin, trans. Christopher Woodall (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 65, n. 8.

34 Introduction correspondence, trends in the epistolary arts likely informed her letters to some degree as well.113 Perhaps even more important than their participation in larger literary and cultural currents, letters provided a critical source of information in the premodern period. Although the advent of print in the fifteenth century and its rapid development in the sixteenth century led to broadsides, pamphlets, placards, and other forms of printed media for the circulation of news, especially in towns and cities, people still passed on information largely by word of mouth and by letters. Moreover, letters conveyed an aura of reliability and authenticity—perhaps because they seemed more “personal.”114 Within and among the courts of Europe, letters were still principal instruments of diplomacy.115 What was said in letters thus mattered vitally because the information and opinions they contained would almost certainly be conveyed to others and because there were few other sources of information about current events, local and abroad.116 Regardless of the specific addressee and the subject matter, letters in this period were likely composed with a larger audience in mind. As such, they were an apt staging ground for figuring a public persona.117 113. Letter 9 in this volume, for instance, bears the name of “De L’Aubespine,” one of Catherine’s most visible secretaries. More information about Catherine’s secretaries of state can be found in Nicola Sutherland, The French Secretaries of State in the Age of Catherine de Medici (London: Athlone Press, 1962), although Sutherland may ultimately overstate the importance of these secretaries as political actors. 114. Although, as noted, this does not necessarily mean more private. 115. It should be noted that letters circulated between courts and among a certain elite class of people, and thus necessarily resonated differently from more publicly accessible, literally pedestrian media such as broadsides. 116. Pamphlets were another primary source of information in this period. Given the increasing upheaval in France, however, a great number of pamphlets were dedicated to religious and political topics, especially in the 1560s and 1570s, and many, like the ones examined in this volume, were polemical and even vitriolic; see Francis Higman, “1542: The Neoplatonic Debate,” esp. 186, in Denis Hollier’s A New History of French Literature. Pamphlets also often circulated anonymously. See “Introduction: French Political Pamphlets, 1547–1848,” http://microformguides.gale.com/Data/ Introductions/30210FM.htm. 117. Among the considerable bibliography on epistolary culture in the pre-modern period, see Constable, Letters and Letter-Collections, and “The Structure of Medieval Society according to the Dictatores of the Twelfth Century,” in Law, Church and Society: Essays in Honor of Stephan Kuttner, ed. Kenneth Pennington and Robert Somerville (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), 253–67; James J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, esp. Chapter 5, “Ars dictaminis: The Art of Letter-Writing,” 194–268; Chartier, Boureau, and Dauphin, ed., Correspondence: Models of Letter-Writing; Martin Camargo, Ars dictaminis, Ars dictandi, Typologie des sources du Moyen Age occidental 60 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1991); Janet Gurkin Altman, “Pour une histoire culturelle de la lettre: l’épistolier et l’état sous l’Ancien Régime,” in L’épistolarité à travers les siècles, ed. Mireille Bossis and Charles A. Porter (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990), 106–15; and Guy Gueudet, “Archéologie d’un

Introduction 35 Of course, this does not exclude the possibility of intimacy in letters. As Catherine’s moving letter to her daughter Elisabeth attests, deeply personal sentiments could be communicated alongside practical, political messages: … God took [your father] from me, and … your brother … and left me with three little children, and in a completely divided kingdom. Nor do I have a single person whom I can trust at all who does not have some particular interest to pursue. For this reason, my love, think of me and let me serve as an example to you lest you trust too much in the love that your husband feels for you, in the honor and comfort that you have now, lest you not commend yourself to God, who can preserve your well being and also, whenever it might please Him, put you in the same state in which I am.118 Catherine both commiserates with her daughter over the arbitrariness and devastation of death, and cautions Elisabeth to safeguard against such tragedy, both spiritually and politically. The coexistence of the personal and the political in the same letter creates a highly nuanced and complex meaning that makes letters an invaluable source of information, both intentional and unintentional. This richness of meaning makes letters apt agents of diplomacy, even when—or perhaps sometimes because—they seem intimate and personal. Circulating among readers bearing multi-layered meanings, much as diplomats increasingly circulated among courts charged with multifaceted offices, letters performed a complexity of functions. They bore specific messages, reinforced social status, and claimed and performed interpersonal relationships.119 Timothy Hampton has explored how literary texts deployed diplomatic encounters as scenes of intense and complicated negotiation between languages and cultures.120 Letters between and among potentates and their representatives also functioned as ambassadors of the self to its public. Likewise, letters play a crucial role in Catherine’s self-representation; they participate in her self-figuration and construction as a political entity.121 Although Catherine’s self-fashioning has been studied extensively in terms of visual iconography, it has not been widely analyzed

genre: les premiers manuels français d’art épistolaire,” in Mélanges sur la littérature de la Renaissance: à la mémoire de V.-L. Saulnier (Geneva: Droz, 1984) 87–98. 118. Letter 11 in this volume. 119. On this performative aspect of epistolary culture, see Kong, Lettering the Self. 120. Timothy Hampton, Fictions of Embassy: Literature and Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009). 121. On medieval epistolary conventions of self-representation and their continuation into the sixteenth century, see Kong, Lettering the Self.

36 Introduction in her letters.122 Catherine’s correspondence creates a particular portrait of her, even if that portraiture was not the express or explicit purpose of the letters. As an incidental portraiture, her letters reveal her canny political prowess, astute assessments, complex maneuverings, and her ability to harness and deploy a filial and maternal vocabulary for political ends. The letters translated here represent only a portion of Catherine’s surviving correspondence—the collected letters, which were edited in the nineteenth century, fill ten volumes. The letters selected here span Catherine’s career as princess, queen, and queen mother, beginning in the 1530s and ending in 1580, with particular attention to letters written around the time of certain decisive moments, such as the transition from one sovereign to the next or the formation of regency. They were selected because they show in one way or another how Catherine’s persona as queen mother is developed, and how maternal language is cultivated and deployed in the interest of politics, diplomacy, and authority. They have diverse addressees and expound on a range of topics, but what unites them is the ways in which they reveal the instrumental use of letters in Catherine’s articulation of a distinct subjectivity and self-representation, and in the textual and material figuration of Catherine as queen and queen mother.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors, Selections Intended for the eyes and ears of the Venetian Doge and Senate, the Venetian diplomatic reports we include here are of a distinctly different genre, with ostensibly different objectives, than the other selections presented in this volume.123 The letters of Catherine de Médicis are often highly constructed diplomatic performances meant to establish or seal a bond between the queen mother and the addressee; they are also sometimes frustratingly lacking in detail—they were meant to authenticate the bearer of the letter who would communicate the queen’s real message orally rather than to commit a detailed message in writing. The polemical and panegyric texts, as we will discuss further in this introduction, are highly propagandistic. In contrast, the diplomatic texts are thoroughly developed 122. Elizabeth McCartney’s “In the Queen’s Words,” cited above in note 101, looks at the letters from a legal standpoint, but not in terms of rhetorical self-fashioning. 123. “Ambassador” in the early modern sense does not necessarily refer to a resident ambassador, although resident ambassadors became court fixtures in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries as diplomacy became recognizable as a profession. “Ambassador” may also refer to a traveler commissioned for an isolated diplomatic mission, or even a well-situated voyager who of his own initiative undertook to provide information to his prince or sovereign. Of the Venetian diplomatic authors we present here, all except for Marino Cavalli appear to have undertaken their embassies as official ambassadors to the court of France. For that reason and for the sake of simplicity we will refer to them here as “ambassadors.”

Introduction 37 informational texts submitted under the guise of objectivity.124 And yet each of these reports is very much a performance constructed by a diplomatic author who finds himself a player in the politics negotiated between the court he serves and the court he visits. The authors of these texts served as the eyes and the ears of the Venetian leadership on the ground in France, and their reports served as a direct line between the envoy and his prince; they were a source of critical information through which Venice could cultivate its own diplomatic stance toward the court of France. These same reports, however, also show courtly politics to be, as Timothy Hampton has argued, a game of competing narratives—and in the Venetian ambassador’s reports, the diplomat is both a reader of a figure like Catherine de Médicis and the author of the queen’s persona as he reconstructs it for a foreign court.125 These formal diplomatic reports—first devised by the Venetians and ultimately imitated throughout Europe—include a variety of topics: the landscape and climate of France; chief agricultural products and natural resources; important customs and institutions; the character of the people; revenues and expenses; relations with other kingdoms and nations (Spain, England, Germany, the Low Countries, Venice itself, the Ottoman Empire); recent pivotal events; what might be called the mood of the court and the kingdom; and, especially in later reports, the question of religion and civil strife.126 These envoys also spend considerable 124. These accounts are compiled in Relations des ambassadeurs vénitiens sur les affaires de France au XVI siècle, ed. and trans. M.N. Tommaseo, 2 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie royale,1838). The original Italian text is printed on the left-hand (even-numbered) pages; the French, on the right-hand (oddnumbered) pages. 125. Hampton’s Fictions of Embassy makes the compelling argument that new emphasis was put on the ambassador as a writer, in addition to his traditional role as orator and rhetorician, and that ambassadors’ letters and reports home reveal the diplomat’s skill in crafting the narrative of his embassy. Hampton also studies how the intersection of embassy and writing manifests itself in literature of the time, including works by More, Rabelais, and Montaigne. See Hampton, Fictions of Embassy, Chapter 1, “Words and Deeds,”13–44, and esp. 20–25, for discussions of narrative construction in ambassadorial letters and reports. Hampton’s monograph is also an invaluable source for early modern theories of embassy and writing. 126. Two essential studies of early modern diplomacy are Garrett Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955), and Charles Carter, The Western European Powers, 1500–1700 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1971). On the composing of diplomatic materials, see Carter, Chapter 2, and, particularly for the Venetian context, Donald E. Queller, The Office of the Ambassador in the Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967), Chapter 5, esp. 142–45. The Venetian reports were known as relazioni, and were the chief means by which the Doge and the Senate gained access to a wealth of information provided by the returning diplomat, including “political, economic, social, and military conditions of the states from which Venetian ambassadors returned” (Queller, Office of the Ambassador, 142). Queller notes that these formal reports, which were quite long and artfully composed, were unique to Venice, and that although other countries established a custom of formal reports, only the relazioni consistently follow certain descriptive formulas. The

38 Introduction time crafting textual portraits of the key players at court, such as the king, queen mother, and other powers behind the throne, paying more or less attention to each figure according to his or her perceived importance. Catherine de Médicis thus commanded only a few lines of dedicated attention from Marino Cavalli in 1546 or the Venetian ambassador Giovanni Cappello in 1554, when she was the wife of the dauphin or queen consort to Henri II; her chief interest to Cappello is her modesty and the six living children she has already given the king. As to be expected, the dedicated portrait of Catherine grows considerably under the hands of Giovanni Michiel and Michele Suriano, both of whom sent reports to Venice in 1561, after Catherine had already taken up the regency during the minority of Charles IX, and just before the outbreak of the first French civil war. Although, at first glance, each of these reports offers itself as a seemingly objective account of French affairs, the pressure on each envoy in these relazioni— his role in negotiations, his estimation of a given situation or prince—is palpable. The diplomat may enjoy an intimate bond with the prince he serves, and yet as Guicciardini points out, lest he disclose too much, the prince may hold the diplomat at bay, rendering the ambassador an unwitting player in a figurative game of chess played between courts, or, to use another metaphor, a player in a fiction spun by one prince for the benefit of another.127 On the other hand, if the ambassador works with only partial knowledge from the prince he serves, he is also witness to other narratives woven by his hosts and their retinue, in which—lacking full knowledge of any given event—he must serve as the interpreter of both the direct and indirect information at his disposal. Thus, Suriano reports that he “can affirm through certain signs that [he has] seen that [the queen mother] does not like the current turmoil in the kingdom,” whereas Giovanni Correro, after

relazioni should thus be distinguished from the day-to-day dispatches that ambassadors wrote from foreign courts to keep their respective princes up-to-date on current events. We include one example of a dispatch at the end of our selections from the relazioni. 127. Hampton, Fictions of Embassy, 20. Maintaining a careful distance between a prince and his ambassador is one of the strategies prescribed by Francesco Guicciardini: “Some princes confide to their ambassadors all their secret intentions, and tell them the goals they intend to achieve in their negotiations with the other princes. Others deem it better to tell their ambassador only as much as they want the other prince to believe. For if they wish to deceive, it seems almost necessary to deceive first their own ambassador, the agent and instrument who must deal with and convince the other prince…. In my opinion, a prince who has prudent and honest ambassadors, well-disposed toward him, and wellprovided for, so that they have no reason to depend on others, would do better to reveal his intentions. But if he cannot be sure that his ambassadors completely fit this description, it is safer to leave them ignorant and to let the grounds for convincing others be the same grounds that convince the ambassadors themselves.” Guicciardini, Maxims and Reflections (Ricordi), trans. Mario Domandi, introd. Nicolai Rubinstein (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), 40.

Introduction 39 evaluating Charles IX’s affable nature, concludes pithily that “he will be very easy to persuade.”128 The skillful ambassador, according to Machiavelli, must negotiate and report what he sees and hears above all with prudence; he must carefully navigate courtly fictions and rhetorically contribute to the creation of the courtly and diplomatic narrative in both oral forms at court and in his writing. This may inform why the Venetian ambassadors repeatedly refer to what they have been told as their basis for understanding the events unfolding around them and their assessment of what might happen next; the ambassador may be covering for his own evaluation of affairs based on what others have said.129 These pervasive references to what has been said, however, are also testament to the persistent oral culture of the early modern period and, more importantly, to the power of information circulated orally, of which the ambassador may not be the source—or not the primary source—but rather the conduit. These diplomats, in other words, did not simply report the events and opinions around them but were inevitably caught up in the shaping of those events and opinions, not least because of their role in the affirmation and circulation of information in the composition of their reports. When Suriano, for instance, takes care to tell his readers that the duc de Guise explained his reasons for leaving court to “a few (who then told me),” he implies the credibility that should be attributed to this rumor. Suriano’s statement also reveals the course of events at this particular court: even if Guise did not openly declare the reasons for his departure, his motivations are still known. And yet, it is difficult to know the extent to which Suriano has introduced here his own rhetorical flourishes for the sake of his own diplomatic narrative, or the extent to which he is speaking in veiled metaphors: by citing that Guise’s reasons were “told [to] a few (who then told me),” is he simply repeating what he has been told? Or is he implying that he believes the information to be true? In other moments, reported conversations work even more clearly to establish the authenticity of information and to justify the diplomat’s assessment of a given situation. In this way, Correro’s 1569 account is striking. Summarizing the motivations behind Catherine’s treatment of the Huguenots, Correro reports that “she pretended not to see what the Huguenots were doing, tolerated them patiently, received them humanely, and favored them with obvious affection. Her Majesty believed (as she told me many times herself) she could appease and satisfy them with these tactics; and so, treating them in this way, she hoped with time 128. Suriano, as quoted in Tommaseo, Relations, vol. 1, 550 [emphasis added]. The reference to the “signs” seen by Suriano is in the original Italian, but not reproduced in the French translation. Correro’s quote in Tommaseo, Relations, vol. 2, 160: “e sarà, a mio giudizio, facilissimo ad essere persuaso.” 129. See Niccolò Machiavelli, The Chief Works and Others, vol. 1, trans. Alan Gilbert (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1989), 116; Daniel Ménager, Diplomatie et théologie à la Renaissance (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2001), 136; Hampton, Fictions of Embassy, 22.

40 Introduction to dissipate these inclinations … .”130 Correro goes on to recount a conversation he had one day with the queen mother about the strategies, fortunes, and misfortunes of her predecessor, Blanche de Castile, about whom she has been reading. In the course of the conversation she confesses, remarkably, something to the ambassador that she evidently wants no one else to know: “[The queen] began to laugh heartily (as she does when she hears something that pleases her), and she answered: ‘I never want anyone to know that I read this chronicle [about Blanche de Castile], for they would say that I follow the example of this good lady and queen who was named Blanche, and was the daughter of the King of Castile.’ ”131 The backdrop of this apparently intimate conversation lends force and authority to Correro’s next sentence, which assertively declares that “[t]hese were the intentions, goals, and hopes of Her Majesty,” as if Correro had heard these goals straight from the queen herself and as if, based on his own assessment of the queen and the court, he can endorse their sincerity. Recorded conversations like Correro’s above—conversations that were surely not transcribed verbatim but recreated from memory and likely embellished—establish the diplomat’s credibility as a witness to private motivations as well as to contemporary events. Alternatively, they show the diplomat to be a skilled writer, eager to use dialogue in the service of his narration. They also show the diplomatic author to be, inevitably, a creature of the court, and one who may be just as vulnerable to the “tactics” of the queen mother as any other figure at court. If Catherine de Médicis’s letters suggest the queen mother’s highly developed sense of performance and the ways in which she could deploy her maternal status for diplomatic purposes, the Venetian diplomats’ reports leave the reader wondering how much of the information they gleaned was packaged strategically for their benefit, in order to convey a certain view of the court and its players. When Catherine invites Correro into an intimate conversation in which she appears to bare her soul, is she not doing so with full awareness that this information will be communicated to Venice? Does she not want Correro to know and, more importantly, to report that, despite appearances, she is decidedly not like Blanche de Castile? Does she orchestrate a tête-à-tête with Correro to gain the sympathy of her interlocutor and thus strengthen her position vis-à-vis Venice? Does she paint a certain portrait of her own stance and thus encourage the goodwill—or at least forestall the immediate hostility—of a foreign prince or realm? One may glean from these diplomatic reports, then, a layered narrative constructed by the ambassador and by a court and sovereign fully cognizant that the ambassador and the prince he serves are an attentive audience. Any portrait of Catherine de Médicis that we can extract from these reports represents the composite of her own courtly performance and the ambassador’s not-always-objective 130. Tommaseo, Relations, vol. 2, 106 [emphasis added]. 131. Tommaseo, Relations, vol. 2, 110.

Introduction 41 interpretation of that performance and the attendant events and actions that shape it. The tone of the portrait, moreover, depends on the interest, sympathy, antipathy, ambivalence, or even indifference each ambassador feels toward the object of his study. Among the diplomatic authors presented here, Catherine had her detractors and supporters; others are more neutral. The earliest diplomatic ambassadors presented in this volume, writing during Catherine’s time as wife to the dauphin and then queen consort, describe her briefly and simply as part of a larger portrait of Henri II. Not surprisingly, later reports offer a much more developed portrait of the queen mother as perhaps the most influential power behind the throne. As is perhaps to be expected, some of these texts betray more sympathy for the queen mother than others. Correro, for instance, portrays the queen as, above all, well-intended, but shackled by the morass of conflicts that, he stresses, no ruler—male or female—would be able to surmount. On the other hand, Giovanni Michiel—writing in the mid-1570s, after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres and after popular opinion had turned against Catherine de Médicis across the religious divide—declares pointedly that “at present, to tell the truth, she is hated.” This statement underscores a pervasive hostility toward the queen mother that he seems to share, although at times he too betrays a begrudging admiration for her intrepid vigor.132 Although each of these accounts depends on the objectives and personal inclinations of each individual ambassador, as well as the period in time in which each diplomat was resident in France, the reports generally reflect the trajectory of French and Venetian public opinion of Catherine de Médicis—from a more neutral appreciation for her as the fecund queen consort of Henri II, to an esteem for her as mother of the king and a conciliatory figure among warring factions, to a deep enmity for a woman perceived to be shrewd, calculating, and personally ambitious. These dedicated portraits of Catherine, embedded within the longer reports on France, attempt to capture above all the character of the queen. Although the ambassadors also include information about her physical appearance and proclivities—we learn for instance, that Catherine likes luxury, food, and drink, that she has an ashen complexion, is rather stout, and has a pronounced lip like her great-uncle, Pope Leo X—their principal purpose is to communicate what can be discerned about her habits and strategies in governing. At least one author seems to realize that truly understanding Catherine’s intentions represents an almost impossible task, given her command of countenance, expression, and strategy— her command, in other words, of the courtly and diplomatic narrative. “I hear from persons who have known her very well for a long time,” reports Giovanni Michiel, “that her thoughts are quite profound, and that she does not let herself be easily understood.”133 Perhaps no other passage better illustrates the skillful 132. Tommaseo, Relations, vol. 2, 242. 133. Tommaseo, Relations, vol. 2, 426. Suriano also admits, “I do not know what Her Majesty has in her heart regarding religious affairs”: Tommaseo, Relations, vol. 2, 550.

42 Introduction diplomat’s role as astute interpreter and translator in the carefully negotiated giveand-take between courts and princes. What the modern reader of these diplomatic accounts can discern from them is multi-fold: a cultivated portrait of the queen mother’s temperament, skills, and vulnerabilities as understood or spun through Venetian eyes; an individual witness’s assessment of the religious and political strife that plagued France during Catherine’s tenure behind the throne; a reading of the evolving mood of the French kingdom as it expressed itself around the figure of the queen mother; and an interpretation of how Catherine’s actions—both as a politician and, strikingly at several moments, as a mother—reveal her personal ambitions. The reports also disclose a wealth of other information that may be secondary to the ambassadors’ primary objectives but is nonetheless intriguing to the scholar of early modern culture: we can discern, for instance, that Catherine’s Florentine origins were part of her public persona as early as 1561, a fact that is greeted with increasing hostility by both the authors of these accounts and, according to them, the French people as the years go on. Perhaps most poignantly, the Venetian accounts reveal the power of their authors to shape the public persona of Catherine de Médicis for Venetian eyes, a power of which Catherine herself was undoubtedly aware and on which, we might speculate, she surely tried to capitalize. At the same time, the reports suggest that those same diplomatic views might have been shaped by a far more powerful force, one that the authors themselves recognized: the force of the rumor mill and of oral exchange, of what “everyone recognizes” and what “everyone knows.”

Marvelous Discourse on the Life, Actions, and Deportment of Catherine de Médicis, Queen Mother (1576), Selections [Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportemens de Catherine de Médicis, Roine Mère: Declarant les moyens qu’elle a tenus pour usurper le gouvernement du Royaume de France, & ruiner l’ estat d’iceluy. Seconde Edition plus correcte, mieux disposee que la premiere, & augmentee de quelques particularitez] The Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportemens de Catherine de Médicis, Roine Mère is one of the most virulent polemical and propagandistic pamphlets issued against Catherine de Médicis in the wake of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres.134 First published in French in 1575 and then in a longer version in 134. Bibliographic notes on sixteenth- and seventeenth-century imprints are available in the Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportements de Catherine de Médicis, Royne-mère, ed. Nicole Cazauran et al. (Geneva: Droz, 1995) 59–109, abbreviated hereafter as “DM.” See also the digital version of the 1575 copy in the University of Virginia Gordon Collection (http://iris.lib.virgiia.edu/rmds/gordon/ gordonimages/Gordon1575_E78/). Denis Crouzet sees this portrait as the origin of Catherine’s notorious reputation, although it is difficult to know whether the pamphlet created the negative portrait of Catherine or merely reflected and fleshed out in print a reputation that was already developed and

Introduction 43 1576, it appears to have been composed during Catherine’s second regency as queen mother in the interlude between the death of Charles IX (1574) and the return of Henri III from Poland to assume the French crown. Although published anonymously—giving neither an author’s name nor a place and date of publication—the author appears to have been intimately familiar with the political events and violent upheavals that rocked France and specifically Paris during the late 1560s and early 1570s. The text is conventionally attributed to Henri Estienne— the scion of the Estienne printing dynasty in Paris, a celebrated Hellenist, and a Protestant—although several other Protestant authors, including Théodore de Bèze and Jean de Serres, as well as a collaboration among multiple authors, have been proposed. Estienne’s authorship is problematic: during the 1572–74 period, he was living in Geneva, where it would have been more difficult for him to follow the affairs of the court and of Paris closely; in addition, he actively pursued court patronage under Henri III as early as 1576, making him an unlikely candidate to compose a tract that viciously attacked the queen mother during those same years. With no definitive evidence to prove otherwise, the precise identity of the text’s author (or authors) remains enigmatic. The specificity of the text’s authorship is perhaps less important than its objective: if its authorship cannot be traced precisely, it does seem likely—if, again, not definitive—that the Discours merveilleux was published as part of a larger, organized Protestant campaign to attack the French crown by targeting the queen mother for readers both in France and abroad. It likely had multiple goals: the first, to excoriate the queen mother and the crown in the wake of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres; the second, to delegitimize any claim Catherine could make to the regency.135 The publication history of the pamphlet is complex. Its original date of publication is still uncertain. Several sixteenth-century contemporaries refer to a Life of St. Catherine, or a text with a similar title, that may have circulated as early as 1573.136 Mireille Huchon has argued that a Latin version may have circulating orally; see Crouzet, La Nuit de la Saint-Barthélemy (Paris: Fayard, 1994), 127–141. Other contemporary pamphlets that take swipes at Catherine strongly suggest that a certain image of her was already in circulation, while contemporary witnesses confirm that by this date she was widely despised. It is likely that versions of the pamphlet, which continued to be printed into the next century, successfully kept this negative portrait alive long after Catherine and her contemporaries had died. 135. Ewa Kociszewska argues that justifying Catherine’s authority as potential regent in the event of Charles IX’s death was particularly crucial after Henri d’Anjou’s election to the throne of Poland, given the geographical distance that separated the two kingdoms. Bolstering Catherine’s authority was, according to Kociszewska, a principal goal of the Ballet des Polonais, the spectacle given by Catherine de Médicis in 1573 to welcome the Polish ambassadors to the French court after Henri’s election. See her “War and Seduction in Cybele’s Garden: Contextualizing the Ballet des Polonais,” Renaissance Quarterly 65, no. 3 (Fall 2012), 812–30 and passim. 136. Pierre de l’Estoile makes at least two references to this text, a “printed Life of the Queen Mother that has since been commonly called the Life of St. Katherine.” In a second version, L’Estoile writes of

44 Introduction been published as early as 1574, although textual evidence can also point to the French as the original version.137 The French text also exists in several forms, some shorter, some longer; some of these imprints have several errors and misprints, while others appear to have been more carefully edited.138 The pamphlet’s multiple editions in several languages suggest that the authors and publishers envisioned a Protestant readership spanning several countries whose influence was crucial to the success of the French reformers. Between 1575 and 1579, at least nine editions were published in French. Two editions were published in Latin in 1575, and two in German in the same year. English editions were published in both 1575 and 1576. Simon Goulart, a French reformer turned Genevan pastor, also included a version of the Discours merveilleux in his two-volume collection of Protestant pamphlets and eyewitness testimony related to the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres.139 That Goulart positioned the Discours merveilleux as the last text in the collection suggests that he saw the pamphlet and the villainous portrait of Catherine de Médicis contained within it as something of a last word on the subject. The pamphlet continued to be published in France at regular intervals, both as an independent text and as part of larger collections, throughout the seventeenth century.140 The 1576 edition, which was heavily reworked to create a more elaborate and readable text, was likely the most broadly circulated version of the Discours merveilleux; it is for this reason that we include extracts from this version, rather than from the 1575 versions. The 1576 version also includes revisions that, according to Nicole Cazauran, point to a more explicit reformist agenda on the part of the pamphlet’s editors.141 And yet the text’s reformist elements do not preclude the possibility of a broader audience, especially as Catholics, Protestants, and political moderates were increasingly hostile to Catherine de Médicis’s policies between the death of Charles IX and the ascension of Henri III. As early as 1574, a “Life of the Queen Mother” in circulation at least as early as 1574. Cazauran speculates that the first edition of the pamphlet may no longer be extant: DM, p. 27, nn. 34–35. For the citations in L’Estoile, see his Registre-Journal du règne de Henri III, vol. 1 (1574–1575), ed. Madeleine Lazard and Gilbert Schrenck (Geneva: Droz, 1992), 85, 109–11. 137. Mireille Huchon, “Vie de Sainte Catherine ou Discours merveilleux: Les avatars d’un pamphlet,” in Cahiers V.L. Saulnier 2: Traditions Polémiques, ed. Nicole Cazauran (Paris: Ecole Normale Supérieure de Jeunes Filles, 1984); see also DM, 27. 138. Cazauran discusses the variations in the imprints in DM, 27–31. 139. Goulart’s version was undoubtedly based on the 1576 version. Goulart was also an intimate friend of Jean Crespin, who amassed stories of Huguenot persecution in his martyrology. Goulart’s Mémoires de l’estat de France (1577), which includes the Discours merveilleux, continued this strategic practice of collecting and circulating Protestant testimony. See Amy Graves, “Martyrs manqués: Simon Goulart, continuateur du martyrologe de Crespin,” Revue des sciences humaines 269, no. 1 (2003), 53–86. 140. DM, 27–58. 141. DM, 35.

Introduction 45 Pierre de l’Estoile noted in his Journal that both Catholics and Huguenots eagerly read pamphlets published against the queen, “so odious was the name of this woman to the people”142—a sentiment echoed by Giovanni Michiel, writing to Venice from France in 1575.143 The narrator of the Discours merveilleux draws on the possibilities afforded by this shared animosity, sometimes seeming to address the Catholics as “nous” (“us”) and the Huguenots as “eux” (“them”), while at other times to reverse this identification of “us” and “them.” In fact, the Discours merveilleux could be read as deliberately trying to evade differentiation along confessional lines and to create other alliances among French subjects by positioning Catherine as an obvious “other” or “stranger” whose alienating features lie in her ethnic and gender difference, and whose danger resides in her proximity to the French crown.144 Modeled satirically on a saint’s vita (or didactic biography), the pamphlet offers the opposite, something akin to a demonography, and carefully delineates the queen mother as its primary target. In the last years of Charles IX’s reign, and particularly after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres in 1572, texts emphasizing the biographical emerged to slander Catherine, suggesting that the vita was a strategic and effective form of attack in the service of advancing political agendas.145 Homing in on Catherine, the Discours merveilleux tends, for example, to exonerate radical Catholics such as the Guises (who were the targets of other Protestant tracts) and to excuse Charles IX as merely Catherine’s pawn. The text traces Catherine’s life from her inauspicious 142. L’Estoile, Registre-Journal, vol. 1, 85. 143. See Michiel’s report on Catherine in this volume. 144. Although an older term, Georg Simmel’s concept of the “stranger” may prove theoretically useful in conceptualizing the complex role and reception of a foreign-born queen such as Catherine de Médicis. For Simmel, a “stranger” refers to an individual (or group of individuals) who seems at once remote and near in any given society, and yet who is woven into the fabric (particularly economic) of a given community; Catherine, who was both foreign-born (a fact that was never entirely forgotten) and yet instrumental in both economic and biological terms to the dynastic continuation of the Valois, embodies a similar ambivalence. S. Dale McLemore clarifies Simmel’s position and gives an overview of the reception of his work among sociologists up to 1970 in “Simmel’s ‘Stranger’: A Critique of the Concept,” Pacific Sociological Review 13, no. 2 (Spring 1970), 86–94, pointing out that for “Simmel (1908) the word ‘stranger’ refers not just to the newcomer but to one who, having come from some other place, assumes or is assigned, a particular position in the social structure,” 88. See Georg Simmel, “The Stranger,” in The Sociology of Georg Simmel, ed. and trans. Kurt H. Wolff (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1950), 402–8. 145. ffolliott and Crawford both point out that polemicists use the conventionally acceptable genre of the “exemplary life”—modeled on ancient sources such as Plutarch’s Lives—but that they effectively rework the genre satirically to create a “negative” life; the strategy works because the generic model was already familiar to a contemporary audience. See Katherine Crawford, “Constructing Evil Foreign Queens,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 37, no. 2 (Spring 2007), 394; Sheila ffolliott, “Exemplarity and Gender: Three Lives of Queen Catherine de’Medici,” in The Rhetorics of Life-Writing in Early Modern Europe: Forms of Biography from Cassandra Fedele to Louis XIV, ed. Thomas F. Mayer and D.R. Woolf (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), 321–40.

46 Introduction birth in Florence to her years as queen consort, regent for the young Charles IX, counselor during his reign, and finally usurper of the regency before Henri III’s return to Paris. In the course of 164 pages it develops, in rhetoric that can be eloquent as well as inflamed and inflated, a host of images that are inextricably linked to Catherine de Médicis’s notorious legacy as a ruthless and chronically ambitious tyrant, an artful and practiced dissimulator, a profoundly corrupt mother, a poisoner and a murderess, a bawd, and the sole cause of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres and of the Wars of Religion that continued to plague the kingdom of France. Within this extended attack, two of the pamphlet’s most persistent and acrid lines of assault target Catherine’s Italian origins—specifically her Florentine origins—and her gender. Catherine’s corruption, evidently, is both ethnically and civically determined, stemming from an inherently flawed Florentine nature. According to the text, a conspicuous perversion colors the character of all who hail from Tuscany and Florence so pervasively that it has become a cultural commonplace. Just as the Venetian ambassadors refer repeatedly to the oral rumor mill, here again the author capitalizes on what, apparently, everyone knows: “Among all nations,” the text declares, “Italy takes the prize for finesse and subtlety: in Italy, Tuscany ranks first for these qualities, and in Tuscany the city of Florence. All proverbs agree on this point.”146 The Medici family, it turns out, more than any other family, is particularly marked by this Florentine flaw. The Discours merveilleux’s anti-Florentine rhetoric is not in itself remarkably unusual. Ethnic Italians were a visible presence both at the French court and in French cities, and anti-Italian sentiment frequently reared its head during moments of crisis in sixteenth-century France.147 However, the Discours merveilleux’s tack is to level that anti-Italianism steadily and persistently onto the figure of the queen 146. DM, 131 [V, 1576]. 147. On French anti-Italianism in its historical and literary context in this period see Jean Balsamo, Les Rencontres des muses: Italianisme et anti-italianisme dans les lettres françaises de la fin du XVIe siècle (Geneva: Slaktine, 1992); Richard Cooper, Litteræ in tempore belli: Etudes sur les relations littéraires italo-françaises pendant les guerres d’Italie (Geneva: Droz, 1997); Henry Heller, Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-Century France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003); Lionello Sozzi, “La polémique anti-italienne en France au XVIe siècle,” in Atti della Accademia della Scienze di Torino, 106 (1972), 99–190; Pauline Smith, The Anti-Courtier Trend in Sixteenth Century French Literature (Geneva: Droz, 1966); and Louisa MacKenzie, Chapter 3, “The Poet, the Nation, and the Region: Constructing Anjou and France,” in The Poetry of Place: Lyric, Landscape, and Ideology in Renaissance France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011), on the construction of a literary France and Frenchness predicated on a rejection of Italy. Catherine’s funeral oration (Appendix) and Brantôme’s laudatory account of her life protesting her good French both suggest that at some point her Italian heritage became an issue in the popular imagination of the queen mother, and in a developing anti-Italianism. Anti-Italianness rears its head at particularly vexed moments, and not just in Catherine’s biography; in her case, it peaks most notably post-massacre in 1572.

Introduction 47 mother, to render her indisputably “Italian” or “Florentine” rather than “French,” and moreover to mark that inheritance as a decidedly negative trait. Catherine, in other words, becomes a tangible and focused human target for a rampant antiItalian animosity circulating in French cities and at the French court. The text works actively to define Catherine as wholly Florentine from its opening pages: nowhere does it mention, for example, that Catherine’s mother was Madeleine de la Tour d’Auvergne, and that she was thus descended from one of the oldest and most aristocratic houses in France. Rather, in the realm of the text, she is very much a Medici. And although Catherine’s Italian inheritance may have been an advantage politically for French territorial gains in the original negotiations for her marriage to Henri before he was dauphin; although she may have functioned early in her marriage as an ornament and embodiment of the Italian aesthetic and intellectual influence that François Ier prized at his court; and although as queen consort and queen mother she patronized Italian and French artists to enrich France’s cultural and visual landscape: the Discours merveilleux registers none of the assets that could potentially be traced to Catherine’s “Italian” identity and upbringing.148 Rather, the text portrays the queen mother as the heir to a special brand of malevolence, manipulation, and dissimulation—one that is uniquely Florentine, that she shares with the likes of Machiavelli, and that she inherits from her Medici forbears such as Lorenzo de Medici and the popes Leo X and Clement VII.149 The Discours merveilleux also attacks Catherine’s gender by deliberately placing her case in the context of other examples of female rule in France. Although the pamphlet claims not to want to focus on women’s wickedness or corruption (“I do not wish to discuss the monstrous vices of our Queen mother nor those of others”150), it does seek to attack female rule and eagerly develops 148. The evolving reception of Catherine’s “Italian” or “Florentine” identity deserves further probing. R.J. Knecht makes the good point that Catherine was in France from the time she was fourteen years old; Catherine de’ Medici, 220. How “Italian,” then, was she? Scholars such as Sheila ffolliott point out that Catherine was likely extremely influenced by Italian figures such as her aunt, Clarice Strozzi, and that their actions and attendant values at certain moments would likely have stayed with her. See ffolliott’s “The Italian ‘Training’ of Catherine de Medici: Portraits as Dynastic Narrative,” The Court Historian 10, no. 1 (2005), 36–54. 149. In fact, Machiavelli’s political theory was little known in France, but much appreciated among scholars familiar with his text. Edmond M. Beame has argued that it was only after 1572, with the rise of anti-Italian sentiment particularly after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, that popular opinion turned against Machiavelli. During this time he became more widely known, but only superficially, often as a byword for undesirable traits, such as manipulativeness or dissimulativeness. See Beame, “The Use and Abuse of Machiavelli: The Sixteenth-Century French Adaptation,” Journal of the History of Ideas 43, no. 1 (1982), 33–54. 150. “Je ne veux par [sic] parler des vices monstrueux de nostre Roine-mere ni des autres … .” DM, 261 [XCI, 1576].

48 Introduction an extended comparison between Catherine’s rule and the calamitous regency of Brunhilda, the seventh-century Visigothic queen who reigned over the Franks. The comparison was meant to pack a punch: it fills the last pages of the book as the final image with which the narrator leaves the reader. The text methodically details the parallels between Brunhilda and Catherine, point by point. Both women are “foreigners,” Brunhilda originally from Spain and Catherine from Italy. Both women ruthlessly murder their enemies and rivals, sometimes by the sword, sometimes more insidiously by poison. Both women are ruled by their irrepressible passions and take foreign lovers to satisfy their lust. Brunhilda’s example, moreover, serves to foretell what (the narrator hopes) will happen to Catherine. After betraying and murdering her own grandsons, Brunhilda was ultimately overthrown and killed, her body then dragged through the dirt by a horse until it was torn to pieces. Given that Catherine committed so many more atrocities than Brunhilda, the narrator declares, let each and every man judge for himself the kind of punishment she ultimately deserves: “Now let everyone judge what kind of sentence Catherine deserves, who in one day has had more men, women and children massacred than the men Brunhilda had killed in all of her wars.”151 In this concluding section, the Discours merveilleux paints the comparison between the two queens with such hyperbolic and unrelenting invective as to render Catherine almost inhuman, indeed monstrous.152 These final pages are built on the premise that her monstrosity is linked to her gender, and, moreover, the abuse of power that always accompanies female rule. Although it may result from an accident of French grammar, the gendering of the pamphlet’s readership as implicitly male (“chacun,” or “everyone”) may also have been a strategic use of gender. The final paragraphs of the Discours merveilleux call on “Frenchmen” (François) from all classes to rise up and restore legitimate rule to the kingdom, to wrench power out of Catherine’s hands. Catherine’s femaleness, in addition to her Florentine origins, serves to isolate and alienate her even more from the readership that the Discours merveilleux constructs. Her tyranny is cast as a convenient female, Florentine counterpoint to the male Frenchness that implicitly unifies and defines the tract’s audience. The readership that the Discours merveilleux explicitly invokes—French and male—becomes a figure for the broader audience that the pamphlet seems to have urgently targeted: women were likely among the actual readers of the book, and the publication history of the text indicates an intended audience that went well beyond French borders and French-language readers. Given the Discours merveilleux’s multiple imprints in several versions over the course of a short span of years, it is clear that the text was in demand and widely read. However, the tract’s dangerous contents and, consequently, the author’s and printers’ discretion 151. DM, 277 [CIII, 1576]. 152. DM, 261 [XCI, 1576].

Introduction 49 in hiding the volume’s provenance, make it difficult to retrace its circulation as it was diffused in France and abroad: while scholars can surmise that versions were printed in Geneva, Heidelberg, London, Edinburgh, and perhaps in the French Protestant stronghold of La Rochelle, we know next to nothing about the path that followed—how the Discours merveilleux was brought into France, for example, or how it was made available to readers.153 And yet the impact of this invective tract on Catherine’s enduring legacy—as either a key text in the development of her persona as the “Black Queen” or as a text that memorialized a negative portrait of the queen mother that was already developing and circulating in sixteenth-century France—is as much a testament to what must have been the successful diffusion of the text as it is to the strength of the Discours merveilleux’s polemical rhetoric.

Pierre de Bourdeille, Seigneur de Brantôme, “Second Discourse on the Queen, Mother of Our Late Kings, Catherine de Médicis,” Selections [“Discours sur la Reyne, mere de noys roys derniers, Catherine de Médicis”] Soldier, memorialist, chronicler, historian, biographer, and courtier, Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme, was a prolific writer—his collected memoirs run to over a dozen volumes.154 He was attached to the court of Mary Queen of Scots,155 and his mother and grandmother were affiliated with the court of Marguerite de Navarre. Brantôme was thus uniquely positioned to write his chatty and highly anecdotal Recueil des Dames, a two-volume collection of accounts of the lives of notable women.156 These two volumes on women differ markedly. The first, on “illustrious ladies” (Les Dames illustres), consists of seven “discourses” on more or less contemporary queens of or from France. The second, also comprising seven chapters, 153. The diffusion of the text in the sixteenth century is discussed by Brigitte Moreau in DM, 55–56. 154. See Dora Polachek’s comprehensive bibliography in “Brantôme (Pierre de Bourdeille),” SixteenthCentury French Writers, ed. Megan Conway (Detroit: Gale, 2006), 53–60. 155. Betrothed in childhood to the future François II, Mary spent most of her childhood in France, raised at Catherine’s court. 156. Sylvie Haaser writes: “Brantôme a grandi dans un milieu essentiellement féminin. C’est sous la bienveillante attention de plusieurs femmes que le jeune Pierre de Bourdeille fait son apprentissage” (Brantôme grew up in an essentially feminine environment. It was under the benevolent attention of many women that the young Pierre de Bourdeille was trained). See “Brantôme, le confident-poète: Marguerite de Valois, Marie Stuart, Elisabeth de Valois,” in Brantôme et les Grands d’Europe: rencontres de Brantôme en Périgord, ed. Françoise Argod-Dutard, Anne-Marie Cocula, et al. (Pessac: Editions du Centre Montaigne de l’Université de Bordeaux 3, 2003), 111–22, here 112, cited in David LaGuardia, Intertextual Masculinity in French Renaissance Literature: Rabelais, Brantôme, and the Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles (Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), p. 181, n.3.

50 Introduction is on “gallant ladies” (Les Dames galantes) and is of more varied stripe; among other titillating subjects, it contains a chapter titled “Discourse on the love of old ladies.”157 This second volume is by far the better known for its frank and frequently bawdy discussion of sexuality and sexual escapades, appetites, practices, and episodes of same-sex sex.158 Indeed, this widely read second volume often eclipses the character and the very fact of Brantôme’s other literary output. In contrast, the first volume on “illustrious ladies,” which includes Brantôme’s portrait of Catherine de Médicis, is nearly the radical opposite of the Dames galantes and recounts the biographies and good, even pious, deeds of royal and courtly ladies. Its ostentatious decorum is courtly and almost prudishly fussy, as we see in this description of Catherine’s ladies: [The queen] typically had very beautiful and virtuous ladies-in-waiting, with whom we conversed, discussed, and chatted every day in her antechamber, very discreetly and modestly. One would not have dared do otherwise, for the gentleman who failed in this was banished and threatened, and feared worse, until the queen pardoned and forgave him, so proper and completely good was she.159 The juxtaposition between Brantôme’s two volumes on women is marked, although they are connected by the style in which they recount these “lives”: deeply informed by eyewitness account and personal anecdote. Read as a whole, the two volumes present a rich mine of detail about sixteenth-century court life and culture. Yet they also offer a perhaps troubling range of views on women—the first volume is fulsome in its praise female virtue, and the second often roundly misogynist in its representation of women’s vices.160 The particularly unflattering 157. It is worth considering whether this titillation is modern. See Polachek on the intellectual value and innovation of talking sex. “Gallant ladies” was not Brantome’s title for this volume; he wished it to be called a much more neutral “Second livre des dames” (Second book of ladies): Polachek, “Brantôme,” 56. 158. Indeed, it eclipses his entire literary output; as Polachek observes, “A cause de la notoriété du second volume des Dames (mieux connu sous le titre alléchant de Vies des dames galantes), on a tendance à oublier que son œuvre remplit onze volumes comprenant plus de 4000 pages dans l’édition de Ludovic Lalanne” (Because of the notoriety of the second volume of the Ladies [better known under the enticing title Lives of gallant ladies], there is a tendency to forget that his work fills eleven volumes, comprising more than 4,000 pages in the edition of Ludovic Lalanne). See her “A la recherche du spirituel,” cited above in note 19, at 227. LaGuardia observes that “most of Brantôme’s work described men and the quintessentially ‘masculine’ activity of warfare”: Intertextual Masculinity, 181. 159. Brantôme, “Discours,” 58. This emphasis on female courtly virtue feels cursory at best, and secondary to the discussion of Catherine and the establishing of Brantôme’s courtly authority. 160. This juxtaposition might also be considered in light of the centuries-long querelle des femmes, in which writers weighed in, often heatedly, on women’s merits and demerits, especially as compared to

Introduction 51 portrayal of women in the latter might even call the sincerity of the former into question, suggesting that the ultimate subject of the volumes might not have been women at all, but Brantôme himself, his own courtly experience and authority as a firsthand eyewitness and participant, and his ability to deploy that experience in crafting literary portraits of courtly women.161 Appearing in the first volume, Brantôme’s “Discours sur la Reyne, mere de noys roys derniers, Catherine de Médicis” is cast as a response to the vituperative Discours merveilleux, a text which, he reports, is “more full of lies than truth.”162 His panegyric account of the life of the queen mother responds to the Discours merveilleux in several ways, some more and less obvious. For example, its very title is an echo of the title of the antecedent polemic pamphlet, all the more striking since he does not name the Discours merveilleux, instead referring to it as an anonymous detractor’s Life of Catherine.163 If, like the Discours merveilleux, Brantôme’s account of Catherine’s life plays on the genre of exemplarity, Brantôme’s text is panegyric while the Discours merveilleux is polemic and invective; Brantôme is autobiographical in his narration, the Discours is anonymous.164 those of men. For a discussion of the sixteenth-century printed debates on this question, see Lyndan Warner’s The Ideas of Man and Woman in Renaissance France: Print, Rhetoric, and Law (Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011). For a discussion of masculinity and Brantôme’s audience, see LaGuardia, Intertextual Masculinity, esp.182. 161. Brantôme’s firsthand experience is corroborated by his assurances of the authenticity of his anecdotes with frequent and seemingly offhand phrases such as “j’ay veu,” “je la vis,” “je me souviens” (‘I have seen,’ ‘I saw it / her’ ‘I remember’). The authorship of a “book” of ladies would also place Brantôme within the literary geneaology of Ovid or Boccaccio, who also famously wrote books about women. 162. “… plus plain de menteries que de vérité”: Brantôme, “Discours,” 27. One indication in Brantôme’s account of Catherine’s life that clearly suggests its composition as a defensive move to counter the calumny of the Discours merveilleux is his oft-repeated method of airing an accusation only to disclaim it; these are accusations that are presumably voiced in the Discours merveilleux. 163. “Vie de Catherine.” This is most likely a reference to the two Latin editions of the Discours merveilleux, published in 1572: Catherinae Mediceae…vera narratio and Legenda sanctae Catharinae Mediceae, reginae matris. 164. Jacques Amyot’s 1572 translation of Plutarch’s Moralia (Les Oeuvres morales et meslées de Plutarque), containing an essay on “Virtues of Women” (“Mulierum Virtutes”), as well as Boccaccio’s fourteenth-century On Famous Women (De mulieribus claribus), made available literary models for discussing female virtue, and in a particular fashion—that is, by compiling a collection of minibiographies. Plutarch focused on historical examples of women’s brave and heroic deeds, whereas Boccaccio discussed famous women noteworthy for their positive or negative qualities. Brantôme’s Recueil is decidedly in line with these—and he explicitly invokes Boccaccio—in gathering a collection of women’s lives, marking his erudition and participation in a particular elite social stratum. The Discours merveilleux, on the other hand, emerging from the milieu of polemicists and pamphleteers, plays on the trope of a negative exemplarity, focusing its invective on a single woman and bringing out an arsenal of calumny that would be difficult to take at face value.

52 Introduction Brantôme’s version diverges strikingly from accounts of the same events and the genealogy in the Discours merveilleux, which might in this regard be considered its partner text. In considering the relationship between these two texts, it is also worth noting the class implications of their very different projects. Pamphlets such as the Discours merveilleux were aimed at a much more bourgeois and civic audience; Brantôme wrote about the court for a courtly audience. The portrayal of Catherine that would ultimately shape her legacy for centuries was, perhaps not surprisingly, the one that targeted a broader audience, although it is certainly possible that courtly subjects also perceived Catherine as villainous. If Brantôme’s panegyric strives steadfastly to counterbalance the invective of the Discours merveilleux, his portrayal of Catherine’s nationality is perhaps surprisingly contradictory. Invoking Boccaccio’s De mulieribus claris (On famous women), a compendium of diverse mythological and historical women, Brantôme implicitly casts his own Recueil as a nationalist project by focusing on French women, and Catherine is included as an exemplary and admirable contemporary French queen. Yet, curiously, Brantôme describes her as both foreign and domestic, first marking her matrilineal Frenchness, then praising her paternal Italian heritage within a larger frame of distinguished and specifically French women. He also recounts that: She spoke and conversed extremely well in French, although she was Italian. To those of her nation, moreover, she very often spoke French, so much did she honor France and its language, and showed off her fine speech to important people, foreigners, and ambassadors who sought audience with her after the king.165 This description is telling, not so much of Brantôme’s inconsistency as of his efforts to prevent Catherine’s French heritage from being overlooked or undervalued. Despite her maternal lineage, however, she was still considered Italian by this most sympathetic and laudatory French courtier, and her nation Italy, despite her marriage, maternity, and regency. Regardless of the politics of Brantôme’s laudatory account of Catherine’s life, it is useful to consider that the circulation of the Discours merveilleux could well have served as an opportunity to vaunt his own courtly authority. In other words, Brantôme’s text is no less subject to partisanship and personal agendas than the Discours merveilleux. Brantôme ostentatiously describes his project as presentist to avoid redundancy, given the wealth of material on “ancient” women. He distinguishes his project from Boccaccio’s, marking his difference from the Italian medieval writer and casting his project as a specifically French, present-day

165. Brantôme, “Discours,” 56.

Introduction 53 nouveauté or novelty, a collection of oral accounts.166 In painstakingly modest, self-disparaging tones, and in contrast to the histories and the “great Boccaccio’s lovely book,” Brantôme calls his own two-volume work a mere “description” of personages and events at court—and yet his offering runs to two sizable volumes, and betrays a careful attention to authorities, not least of which is his own. One salient example of Brantôme’s self-promotion is in his pointed descriptions of himself as having been present for the conversations he reports between illustrious personages.167 While his method relies heavily on name-dropping, it simultaneously underscores his own authority as someone with access not only to exchanges between the various political players at the French court, but also, presumably, access to those key players themselves. This method contrasts starkly with the tactics of the Discours merveilleux, which relies on its circulatory powers as a printed text to diffuse its message. Brantôme relies on personal authority, and on the authority of the spoken word, highlighting how sixteenth-century France was in many ways still very much an oral culture, despite developments in print technologies. Despite his claims to offer a differing view of Catherine, and notwithstanding his averred interest in the present, Brantôme, like his anonymous counterpart, does not escape the generic demands of early modern biography, and his account of Catherine, like the Discours merveilleux, also offers a genealogy. This could be considered another way in which Brantome “authorizes” his text, by observing generic convention. Unlike the Discours merveilleux, however, which shrouds the Medici family origins in obscurity, Brantôme’s “Discours” reaches back to antiquity for an origin story.168 He establishes an ancient and illustrious lineage for the Medicis, in contrast to Catherine’s French lineage, which does not need explanation for a contemporary audience. The ways in which Brantôme layers his account with authorities is striking: referring to both textual and ecclesiastic authority, he reports that his history of Catherine comes from a funeral oration, a state-sponsored piece of rhetoric par excellence, by a monsieur de Beaune, a “worthy prelate.”169 166. This suggests the firsthand narrative as enhancing, rather than challenging, credibility. This was not as obvious a move for the period as might be assumed. See Andrea Frisch’s work on the figure of the witness, The Invention of the Eyewitness: Witnessing and Testimony in Early Modern France (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004). 167. “Indeed,” he writes, “I once heard Pope Pius IV say at the table, when he gave a dinner after his election for the cardinals of Ferrara and Guise, … that he held this house to be so great and so noble that he knew of none in France that surpassed it in ancientness, valor, or greatness.” See our translation in this volume, p. 185. 168. Brantôme, 28–29. The Discours merveilleux describes the Medici family as insignificant, first coming to prominence through an unnamed “charbonnier” (coalworker) whose “fils medecin” (doctor son) then took his profession as a surname: DM, 131. 169. “Monsieur l’archevêque de Bourges, of the house of Beaune”: Brantôme, “Discours,” 28–29.

54 Introduction This attention to an outside authority as the source for his text, which is not at all unusual in pre-modern texts, is at once bolstered and juxtaposed with the careful ways in which Brantôme establishes his personal credibility: most of the stories in his “Discours” are supported by the claim, “as someone told me.”170 Many anecdotes are also guaranteed by his presence: “I saw.”171 Such references lend an oral quality to Brantôme’s narrative, and they point to the oral culture of the early modern court. More importantly, they grant pride of place to eyewitness account, privileging the personally witnessed and orally recounted over textual authorities. Brantôme proudly, if ambitiously, claims at the end of the chapter that he has seen everything that he wrote about Catherine, and for the rest, he learned about it from illustrious people.172 In this way, Brantôme’s “Discours” shares the trope of orality with the Venetian diplomatic accounts, but here the repeated claims of oral exchange of information register differently. The Venetian ambassadors’ references to orality may serve as a screen to protect sources or substantiate personal opinion, or may simply function at face value: to reinforce information. Here, the studied and numerous references to reported information, alongside assurances of firsthand witnessing, stand as a claim to a specific kind of authority, based on physical presence and experience, that informs Brantôme’s text, in contrast to more conventional methods of authentication. The commingling of these strands of authority marks Brantôme’s memoir as a text that inhabits a space of contradiction, exploring competing ways of constructing textual authority. This concern with authority is reflected in Brantôme’s concerns about the publication of his work, and specifically its material production. Brantôme did not wish his work to appear in print in his lifetime, and yet, remarkably, he was highly exacting about the material production of his work after his death. He left precise instructions in his will about the financing, printing, presentation, and attribution of his work, down to the different colored velvet coverings for each of the volumes of his collected writings.173 Ultimately, his wishes were not respected, and his writings were widely read beginning in the mid- to 170. The text contains numerous formulations, made seemingly as asides, such as “j’ay ouy dire” (I heard said), “j’ay ouy faire ung conte” (I heard a tale), “ainsin que j’ay ouy dire” (As I heard said), “j’ay ouy conter” (I heard told), and even assurances that the queen herself told him something: “La Reyne mesme me fist cest honneur me le dire” (The Queen herself did me the honor of telling me so) (30), “elle-mesmes me fist cest honneur de discourir” (she herself did me the honor of relating to me) (42), and “je sçay bien ce qu’elle [la reine] m’en dist aussi” (I know well what she told me about it as well) (51). 171. See, for example, “Discours,” 31, 44, 49, 50, 52, 56, among others. 172. He has “seen everything that I wrote about her and what happened in my time; of other times, I learned about them from very renowned persons. I will do the same for all of my books” (“veu tout ce qu’ay escript d’elle, et ce qui a passé de mon temps; d’autres temps je l’ay apris de personnes fort illustres, ainsin que je le feray en tous ces livres”), “Discours,” 70. 173. Polachek, “Brantôme,” 55–56.

Introduction 55 late seventeenth century, circulated by different publishers in many expurgated and pirated versions.174 Much as his wishes for his writings were seemingly disregarded, Brantôme’s vision of the queen mother seems to have been ultimately sidelined by the invective of pamphlets like the Discours merveilleux, whose portrayal of the evil, wily foreign queen came to dominate popular opinion on Catherine and resonates even today. And, for all that his laudatory account might have been intended as a corrective to the virulent Discours merveilleux, Brantôme’s portrait of Catherine was no less shaped by his own political and personal agendas. Indeed, what is perhaps most illumined by the juxtaposition of these various portraits of Catherine is the ways in which they share many core events and features, while casting them in opposite ways, revealing the stock elements of political and partisan rhetoric in this period. Reading these texts together—personal correspondence, diplomatic reports, polemical pamphlets, and biographical memoir—offers a study of the rhetoric of polemic and panegyric, and the source material and the tropes, often complementary, that they employed. More telling than their terms of art, the targets they took—gender, maternity, “Frenchness,” and “foreignness”—suggest that these were the central and contested categories of identity and female power in sixteenth-century France. The multifaceted and often contradictory portrayals these texts offer of Catherine de Médicis reveal the terms within which political portraiture took place in this period, and show the often pitched battle that took place to establish, seemingly for perpetuity, a definitive narrative of this very powerful queen mother.

Note on the Edition and Translation Choosing a selection of texts on Catherine de Médicis proved challenging because of the sheer immensity of the archive surrounding this queen. In the end, we sought to offer a range of texts of diverse genres, composed during or just after her lifetime, that engaged in the portrait-making of the queen mother for specifically political or partisan ends. The principal texts featured in this volume are, to some degree, the most significant texts surrounding the queen mother: Catherine’s letters are perhaps the only text to offer a portrait of the queen from her point of view; the Venetian Relazioni are, generically, the most developed diplomatic reports of the period; and the Discours merveilleux and Brantôme’s “Discours sur la Reyne” are two of the most widely known polemical and panegyric texts about Catherine de Médicis. Portraits of the Queen Mother is by no means exhaustive—it does not contain, for instance, any of the courtly contemporary poetry dedicated to and about the queen mother. We hope, however, that the volume will encourage readers to explore further the ways in which the image of this queen mother 174. Polachek, “Brantôme,” 56.

56 Introduction was constructed in the sixteenth century, and how it continues to be constructed in the present day. Translating this collection was also a challenging and thought-provoking task for a number of reasons, not least of which was the diversity of styles and tones among texts with different authors and different objectives. Even within a given text or set of texts ostensibly authored by the same person, stylistic and tonal differences were manifest: thus, for example, Catherine’s letters range from intimate and affectionate, to reservedly diplomatic, to calculating and commanding, while the polemical Discours merveilleux was at times acerbically satirical and at others quite somber. We attempted to preserve both meaning and stylistic differences among and within texts while working to render the prose accessible for a twenty-first-century English-language audience. The long sentences characteristic of sixteenth-century prose (even in a text like Brantôme’s, which is more attentive to literary aesthetics than the others), separated by little or no punctuation, makes reading these texts difficult; moreover, the authors and scribes of letters and diplomatic reports, who often needed to compose their missives quickly, frequently combined several related thoughts, but did not use punctuation to differentiate between discrete ideas. For the sake of rendering these texts as legible as possible, we have broken down especially long sentences and used modern punctuation conventions, while keeping the punctuation of the source texts whenever possible. Any ambiguities in the translation are indicated in the notes. Although we have attempted to preserve stylistic differences, for the sake of consistency we have followed modern rules in the capitalization of personal titles, both in French and in English, across all texts. In order to retain the flavor of the sixteenth-century French, however, we have kept original French spellings for the titles of the texts. Unless otherwise stated in the notes, all translations are our own. We have noted the lead translator for each of the texts translated in this volume, but would like to acknowledge that editing and annotating have been collaborative, a true and truly pleasurable exercise in shared scholarship.

François

Charles IX Henri III (1550–74) (1551–89)

(1518–36)

Fig. 1. The Medici and Valois Families.

Dates of Reign and Marriages François Ier, r. 1515–1547, m. (1) Claude de France; (2) Eleanor of Austria Henri II, r. 1547–1559, m. Catherine de Médicis François II, r. 1559–1560; m. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots Elisabeth m. Philip II, King of Spain Claude m. Charles de Guise, duc de Lorraine Charles IX, r. 1560–1574, m. Elizabeth of Austria Henri III, r. 1574–1589, m. Louise de Lorraine Marguerite m. Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre (later Henri IV of France)

Louis (1549–50)

François II (1544–60)



Claude (1547–75)

(1519–89)

Elisabeth (1545–68)

Catherine de Médicis

(1502–19)



(1492–1519)

Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici, Duke of Urbino m. Madeleine de la Tour d’Auvergne

(1519–59)

Henri II

(1494–1547)

François Ier

(1522–45)

Charles



Charles d’Angoulême (1459–1496) m. Louise de Savoie (1476–1531)

Marguerite François-Hercule Jeanne (1553–1615) (1555–84) (1556)



Jean III de la Tour d’Auvergne (1467–1501) m. Jeanne de Bourbon-Vendôme (1465–1511)





Piero di Lorenzo de’ Medici (1472–1503) m. Alfonsina Orsini (1472–1520)

Victoire (1556)

(1523–74)

Marguerite

(1499–1524)

m. Claude de France

Louis XII of France (1462–1515) m. Anne de Bretagne (1477–1514)

Introduction 57

Fig. 2. François Dubois, The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (Le Massacre de la Saint-Barthélémy), ca. 1572–84. By permission of the Musée cantonal des Beaux-Arts de Lausanne.

58 Introduction

Introduction 59

Fig. 3. Letter from Catherine de Médicis to the bishop of Limoges (her ambassador to Spain), October 1560. The letter is in the hand of her secretary, Claude de L’Aubespine, and signed by both Catherine and L’Aubespine (BnF, Fonds français 15874). By permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

60 Introduction

Fig. 4. Letter from Catherine de Médicis to her daughter Elisabeth de Valois (Queen of Spain), March 11, 1560, written in secretarial hand, bearing Catherine’s signature, “Votre bonne mère Caterine” (BnF, Fonds français 15874). By permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Introduction 61

Fig. 5. Letter from Catherine de Médicis to her daughter, Elisabeth de Valois, December 1560, in Catherine’s hand and bearing her signature (BnF, Fonds français 15874). By permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

62 Introduction

Fig. 6. Close-up, letter from Catherine de Médicis to Elisabeth de Valois, December 1560. (BnF, Fonds français 15874). By permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis, Selections1 Given Catherine de Médicis’s vast official correspondence (comprising ten printed folio volumes published from 1880 to 1943), the texts included here offer only a sample of her letters. Nevertheless, this sample is representative of the epistolary rhetoric deployed in Catherine’s name, and of the gamut of political and personal episodes that commanded her attention in writing. Several of the letters included here were penned by secretaries. It is likely that, of these letters, several were dictated directly by Catherine. It is also possible that several were given shape by Catherine’s policies or opinions but were composed by secretaries and later approved by Catherine. The use of secretaries accounts for some of the discrepancies in style and vocabulary among the letters. The passage of time and the shift in both historical context and Catherine’s own policies no doubt also accounts for some differences. Letters whose vocabulary or irregular spelling suggest that they were not written by a professional secretary or notary are indicated with “no secretary” in parentheses.2 Catherine’s first letter after her departure from Florence for France: 1. September 2, 1533 (Vol. 1) To the Duke of Albany.3 Monseigneur my uncle, I received a letter that you sent me with monseigneur the comte de Tunarra, my good relative, which tells me many things that please me very much.4 I hold them close to my heart along with the letters of my master the king, our lord, and the presents that he sent me along with the first letter written 1. Lead translator: Leah L. Chang. French versions of the following letters may be found in Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, 11 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1880–1943), hereafter cited as “Lettres.” Volume numbers refer to this edition. The editors of Catherine de Médicis’s collected correspondence accounted for any discrepancies in dating among sources, as indicated on occasion by alternative dates in parentheses. We have translated texts and dates as they are presented in the Lettres. 2. Notably, Brantôme recalls seeing Catherine de Médicis write correspondence in her own hand. See our translation of Brantôme in this volume. The reader should note that the printed correspondence, published as indicated in the note above, does not distinguish between letters written in Catherine’s own hand and those written by secretaries. 3. John Stuart, Duke of Albany, grandson of James II of Scotland: born in France ca. 1481, named regent of Scotland during the minority of James V, he died on June 2, 1536. He was married to Anne de la Tour d’Auvergne, comtesse d’Auvergne, who was Catherine de Médicis’s aunt on her mother’s side. 4. The “comte de Tunarra” appears to be Lorenzo Cybo, a general who married into the family that controlled the duchy of Massa and Carrara. Cybo was the nephew of Pope Leo X, and the paternal grandson (not nephew, as indicated in the Lettres) of Pope Innocent VIII. He brought the presents that Pope Clement VII sent to the duc d’Orléans. Lettres 1, p. 1, n. 2.

63

64 Letters of Catherine de Médicis to me by monsieur d’Orléans, his son and my husband.5 I greatly thank our lord the king and his son monsieur d’Orléans for this, and I also thank you, my uncle and father. To let you know of our news, yesterday we left Florence and today arrived at Pistoia, where we found monsieur the comte de Tunarra, the relative I spoke of above. Tomorrow, in the evening, God willing, we will lodge at Lucca, arriving Thursday at Petra Sancta and Friday at Massa with monsieur the Most Reverend Cardinal of Cibo.6 Saturday I hope to speak with you at La Spezzia or sometime afterward, as it pleases you. The present messenger will be Baptiste, who will give you a fuller account in person. Also we await your response by another messenger whom we sent Sunday. I recommend myself always to your good graces. Written at Pistoia, the second day of September 1533. Your dearest daughter and niece,7 Caterina Medici.

The following letters are addressed to Jean d’Humières, who was chosen in 1546 as one of the guardians of François, duc d’Orléans, the oldest son of Catherine and Henri, and the future dauphin of France. His wife was Françoise de Contay. Letters regarding the welfare of her children make up a large percentage of Catherine’s correspondence during the late 1540s and early 1550s. 2. December 21, 1546 (Vol. 1) To Monsieur d’Humières. Monsieur d’Humières, I have received your letter, and you have given me such great pleasure in sending me news of my children. I am very pleased that madame d’Humières has arrived there because of the relief she will bring you in the care of my children. Monsieur8 and I do not need to recommend them to you because of our confidence in the care that you and madame d’Humières are taking in their treatment. I beseech you, Monsieur d’Humières, to continue to send me news of them frequently, for you could do nothing else that would please monsieur and me more. It is here that I will entreat our Creator, Monsieur d’Humières, after recommending myself to you, to give you all you desire. 5. François Ier and his son, Henri, duc d’Orléans, who was not yet dauphin at the time of his marriage to Catherine. 6. The cardinal is Innocenzo Cybo, brother of Lorenzo Cybo, the comte de Tunarra. 7. The closing is in Italian: “Figliola et nipote.” 8. Henri II.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 65 Written at Compiègne, the 21st day of December 1546. Yours truly, Catherine.

3. August 23, 1547 (Vol. 1) To Monsieur d’Humières. Monsieur d’Humières, I received the letter that you sent me and it seems to me that you could do no better than to obey the order of the king. You are so wise that you will manage in such a way that my son’s health will not worsen, because, in addition to the grief that the king and I would feel if ill befell him, you would be all the more aggrieved since he is in your care.9 This is why I will not write you a longer letter, but only entreat you to send me news of him frequently as well as that of all the other children. I pray to God, Monsieur d’Humières, to give you all you desire. From Compiègne, this 23rd day of August (1547). Yours truly, Catherine.

4. September 7, 1547 (Vol. 1) To Monsieur d’Humières, Chevalier of the Order of the King and Guardian of my Children. Monsieur d’Humières, given my son’s illness, you have given me great relief in sending me word of his recovery and that he is beginning to feel better, for which I praise God. Marc Antoine told me at length all the news of this, from which I know that my son was very well served and comforted. I beseech you to still be careful with him and let nothing that must be done for him be neglected. I have every confidence in you and am sure that you will do so. In order to relieve my concern, send me news of him as often as you can. I pray, Monsieur d’Humières, that God grant your greatest wish. From Compiègne, this 7th day of September (1547). Yours truly, Catherine. 9. A letter from Henri II to M. d’Humières, dated July 30, 1547, indicates that François had suffered from smallpox. See Lettres 1, p. 20, n. 2.

66 Letters of Catherine de Médicis 5. March 27, 1548 (Vol. 1) To Monsieur d’Humières. Monsieur d’Humières, I was so pleased to have heard from your letter the news of my son and my daughter, and that they are doing well since their arrival at Saint Germain, especially my son.10 I think that, by now, my other daughter should have arrived there as well.11 I beseech you to tell me how she does there, and to send me news of them as often as you can. You would do me great pleasure in doing so. I pray to God, Monsieur d’Humières, that He keep you in His holy and worthy protection. Written at Fontainebleau, the 27th day of March (1548). Yours truly, Catherine.

Letters 6–9 were composed shortly after the death of Henri II, during the short reign of François II (July 1559–December 1560). 6. August 8, 1559 (Vol. 1) To the Princess of Portugal.12 Madame my good niece, I have read what you have written to me via the marquis de Tanara and have heard what he had to say on your behalf. I am very pleased and gratified by the noble consolation that you give me in my grief and affliction, caused by the terrible loss I have had in the death of my lord the late king.13 I welcomed your consolation all the more because it seems to come from someone who has endured a similar misfortune to mine, who knows all the more what a burden it is, and who is thus all the more inclined to pity those who feel a similar torment. If my misfortune was such that something in addition to God and the passage of time could heal it, I would assure you that your sage remonstrance 10. She writes here of François and Elisabeth. The editors of the Lettres note that in light of the various illnesses in the region, Henri II had been forced to send his children from Saint Germain to Villiers-le-Bel, but that he ordered their return on March 20, 1548, after the contagion had passed. Lettres 1, p. 22, n. 3. 11. Claude, Catherine’s second daughter. 12. Joana, the second daughter of Charles V and Isabel of Portugal, married to the infant João Manuel, the son of João III of Portugal. João Manuel died less than two years after their marriage, and eighteen days after his death Joana gave birth to their son, the future King Sebastian of Portugal, who is referred to in note 88 below. Catherine may be reaching out to Joana both as a widowed queen and as a mother of young children. 13. On June 30, 1559, during festivities celebrating both Elisabeth de Valois’s marriage to Philip II of Spain and the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis, Henri II was mortally wounded in the head during a jousting match. He died ten days later, July 10, 1559.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 67 would have given me great comfort because of the good and sincere affection that I know inspired it. For this I thank you with great affection and am infinitely determined to love you and to preserve for my entire life this good and perfect friendship, this union and alliance between us that has begun so well. To maintain this friendship, knowing my lord the late king’s firm and constant wish that it be so, I will never neglect any part of it whatsoever. And I especially beseech you, Madame my good niece, to rest assured that, if ever I can give you proof of my friendship, as I asked the marquis to tell you on my behalf, you will know in effect that there is no better nor more perfect friend to you than Your good aunt, Catherine.

7. May–June, 1560 (Vol. 10) To My Cousin, Madame the Duchesse de Guise.14 [no secretary] My cousin, I could not write to you earlier because of the troubles that we have had which, thank God, we are beginning to get out of. I hope that great good may come from the great misfortune into which we almost fell. For many who shared their opinion regarding this new religion have backed away from it, now that they have seen what this religion was and what would become of them because of it. Such that, of the great numbers that they were said to have, I think at present one would only find but a few, and these few are so wicked that no one wants to believe them, in spite of their pretty words. And so, the king my son has so firmly determined to chastise them that I hope we will no longer have any occasion to fear our friends.15 I think that you have been troubled about this; but, my cousin, you must put your mind at ease and be assured that order will be so well restored that, with God’s help, all things shall go well. You must help us pray for this. I have hope in God that He will grant your prayers and ours in this regard, for which I supplicate Him with all my heart that He may wish to do so, and to grant your greatest wish. Your good cousin, Catherine.

14. Antoinette de Bourbon, dowager duchesse de Guise (1493–1583), aunt of Antoine de Bourbon, and wife of Claude de Lorraine, the first duc de Guise. 15. As the editors of the Lettres note (Vol. 10, p. 24, n. 1) this letter appears to concern the Amboise conspiracy (as discussed in our introduction); with the reference to fearing “our friends” Catherine seems to allude to the insidiousness of the conspiracy and the difficulty of knowing who was involved, or who may have been touched by the new religion.

68 Letters of Catherine de Médicis 8. August 3, 1560 (Vol. 1) To the King of Navarre,16 My brother, I have so suffered from grief in the past year and have seen this poor kingdom afflicted with so many calamities one after another that, until now, I have been unable to take much rest. But given the great affairs in which the king my son finds himself, in addition to the troubles and emotions that began some months ago in this kingdom, there did not seem to me, nor to any of the good servants of the crown, to be any better path, given the present need, than to assemble all those who have the honor of belonging to the king’s council. Thus, among such good and great company, may we find a remedy for the present misfortune and appease all the troubles that we see in this kingdom. To this end, my brother, because you have the honor of being as close to the king my son as you are, and because you are among the most important members of the council, I wanted to begin with you. I am sure that as you are the foremost person whom this regards by reason of blood, you will also be foremost in the devotion that you have always shown to the late king my lord and to the present king. I thus entreat you to do as the king wishes, and come to him immediately as he bids you. Be assured, my brother, that he and I will take every pain to do so well by you that, in addition to the satisfaction that you will have for having served him in the necessity of our many affairs, you will also have no occasion to complain of your reception in a company where you will be so loved and esteemed. I have charged the sieur de Carrouges to tell you this on my behalf, and I beseech you to believe it as it pleases you. Your good sister, Catherine.

9. December 4, 1560 (Vol. 10) To Monsieur de Villefrancon, Gentleman of the Chamber of the King my Son and his Lieutenant in the Government of Burgundy. Monsieur de Villefrancon, for the past few days the king my son has been assailed by an abscess that has completely and grossly afflicted him, accompanied by a great fever that has made him very ill and put him in grave danger. All things are in the hands of God, from whose bounty I still nevertheless hope for grace and goodness in this kingdom, such that He will preserve and restore him, if it pleases Him, to perfect health. Thus I wanted to warn you so that you would know what state he is in. I beseech you, in the name of the great affection that I know you have 16. Antoine de Bourbon, first prince of the blood; husband of Jeanne d’Albret, the daughter of Marguerite de Navarre and Henri d’Albret, and niece of François Ier.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 69 always felt for his service and for the good of the crown, to keep your eyes open more than ever in order to keep the affairs in your charge as secure and calm as possible, and give orders that obedience be kept and paid to whom it is due. Thus, should this sad and regrettable event come to pass,17 nothing unexpected may come from your side of things, but rather all may be contained in duty and in the fidelity and service due to this crown. Grace be to Our Lord, He has not left this kingdom deprived of legitimate and true successors, of whom I am the mother. For the sake of the kingdom,18 I will take in hand the necessary duty that must be given to the administration, using the advice and good counsel of princes and great noblemen, of which we are not lacking, God be thanked, as they all desire and perfectly demonstrate everything that one would expect of good, faithful, and devoted subjects of their prince, as I am sure you will show as well. And if you discover (should this unfortunate event come to pass) any assembly that might gather, or intrigue that might begin in any of the regions of your government (which you must watch over closely) to cause trouble, you must not wait for it to gather strength, but crush it so quickly and so well that the authority remains with the king my son. Rest assured, as you already know well enough, that, whatever may come of this beginning, you will do a great service to the king and to myself. I am praying God, Monsieur de Villefrancon, to keep you in His holy protection. Written at Orléans, the fourth day of December, 1560. Catherine. De L’Aubespine.19

Letters 10–16 were composed after the death of François II and during the formation of Catherine’s first regency as queen mother. 10. December 6, 1560 (Vol. 1) To Monsieur de Rennes, Master of Requests at the Palace of the King my Son and his Ambassador to the Emperor.20 17. The death of François II. He died the day after this letter was composed, December 5, 1560. 18. Here Catherine makes a rhetorical move, sliding from a reference to her status as mother and to her sons as the legitimate “successors,” to speaking more specifically of her responsibility to the kingdom. 19. Claude II de Laubespine, or L’Aubespine (1510–67), one of the secretaries of state under Henri II and François II; his signature, like those of other secretaries, is present in many of the letters of the collected correspondence. See Nicola Sutherland, The French Secretaries of State in the Age of Catherine de Medici (London: Athlone Press, 1962). Her Appendix I (310) lists the secretaries of state from 1547–88. 20. Bernardin Bochetel, abbé de Saint-Laurent, bishop of Rennes from 1555 to 1566, was French ambassador to the court of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor (1503–64).

70 Letters of Catherine de Médicis Monsieur de Rennes, it is with great regret that I send you the sad news you will read in the letter from the king my son.21 You can be assured that the affliction that I feel from this is so poignant and so painful that it would be entirely intolerable if I did not consider that such was the will of God who disposes of us as He pleases, and if I did not see the two great losses that I have suffered in such a short time22 come to life again in the person of the king my sovereign and son and in the goodness and virtue that is so promising in him. This is the only thing that consoles me today among such tears and tribulations, for which I have great occasion to praise and thank God infinitely. I have carefully considered the young age at which it has pleased God to call him to this crown, and have nourished him so well and taught him of the fear of God, of the friendship of all the princes who are his neighbors and friends, and of all other things that are virtuous and worthy of the role he holds. I have also taught him those qualities that the Emperor had so often noted in the late king my son23 and on which he counseled me so often, such that he will never see in him [Charles IX] anything but what one should expect from a most virtuous prince. He loves the good and is keeper of our Christian religion, and of the general and universal repose of Christianity. He especially will honor and love this religion as dearly as his virtue merits, as much as any other living prince has done. I ask you to make the Emperor understand this, and above all what the king my sovereign and son writes to you about the state of his affairs, which I have no doubt many persons will undertake to depict for the Emperor in diverse colors. Make known to him the will of the princes, whom I keep unified so well against any other interests, whatever they may be. Knowing the duty that you undertake and the responsibilities that you hold as ambassador to the Emperor, I ask you to carry on; and if you wish, I assure you that, if in the death of the late king my sovereign and son you have lost a good master, you have gained another who will never forget the services nor the recompense of good and worthy servants. And I too will employ whatever power I will have, both in means and in credit, in his stead. Moreover, we have received your dispatch of the seventh of last month, in which is stated the Emperor’s proposal about the convenience of Besançon for the meeting of the council, and his desire for the pope to approve it. But, through another dispatch from the bishop of Angoulême, which we received at the same time as yours on the fifteenth of that month, he commands that a consistory take place the following week on Friday to read the papal bull announcing the opening of the council, which would be brought by the cardinals Sarracena, Puteo and Cicada, who were charged with composing it.24 The following Sunday the bull would 21. Charles IX, François II’s younger brother, who ascended the throne after François’s death. 22. The deaths of her husband, Henri II, and her son François II. 23. François II. 24. The bishop of Angoulême is Philibert Babou de La Bourdaisière, who became a cardinal in 1561. Following the editors of the Lettres, the cardinals in this passage can be identified as follows: Giovanni

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 71 be published, and the council should take place at Trent.25 It seems that there is no more reason to speak of Besançon, except perhaps for the translation of the bull, which is not yet ready and which must be done very carefully. The same bishop declared that although he and the Emperor’s ambassador had worked to have the opening of the council come from a new command, rather than as a continuation of the Council of Trent, they were not able to make it so, even though they were given to believe that everyone would have occasion to be content; this will be clear in the bull, which he promised to send us directly by messenger immediately after he sent his dispatch. This makes me believe that we should have it before long. God willing, let this bull be such that it can achieve the good that is so desired and necessary for the love of all Christendom in one and the same religion. If you hear anything that is more certain and particular on the two marriages about which you advised in your dispatch, let us know, as well as all the news that you deem worthy. I will order the payment for your estate as soon as we have arranged our affairs a bit, and I pray to God, Monsieur de Rennes, that He keep you in His holy protection. Written at Orléans, the 6th day of December 1560. Catherine.

11. December 7, 1560 (Vol. 1) To Madame my daughter, the Catholic Queen.26 [no secretary] Madame, my daughter, I am charging this porter with telling you many things on my behalf, which will keep me from having to write you a long letter. I will only say that you should not trouble yourself about anything, and rest assured that I shall feel no pain in governing myself in such a way that God and the world will have occasion to be content with me. For it is my principal goal to have before my eyes the honor of God in all things and to safeguard my authority, not for myself, but for the preservation of this kingdom and for the good of all your brothers, whom I love as coming from the place from which you have all come. For this reason, my daughter, my love, commend yourself to God’s care, for once you saw Michele Saraceni, archbishop of Acerenza and later bishop of Sabina (d. 1568); Giacomo Puteo, archbishop of Bari (d.1563), and Giovanni Battista Cicada, cardinal of San Clemente (d. 1570); see Lettres 1, p. 156, nn. 1–3. 25. Pope Pius IV had recalled the Council of Trent in November 1560. As in previous sessions of the council, its aim was to address points of doctrine raised by the Reform movement, codify orthodox Catholic teaching, and condemn Reform practices and doctrine deemed to be heretical. 26. Elisabeth de Valois, Catherine’s daughter, married to Philip II of Spain. The title of “Los Reyes Católicos” (“Catholic King and Queen,” sometimes rendered as “Catholic Monarchs”) was first given to Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella of Castile in 1498 by Pope Alexander VI in recognition of the specifically Catholic principles they promoted as sovereigns.

72 Letters of Catherine de Médicis me as happy as you are now, never believing myself to have any other tribulation than to not be loved as much to my liking by the king your father who honored me more than I deserved; but I loved him so much that I was always afraid, as you know well enough. And God took him from me, and not content with that, he took from me your brother, whom I loved, as you know, and left me with three little children, and in a completely divided kingdom.27 Nor do I have a single person whom I can trust at all who does not have some particular interest to pursue. For this reason, my love, think of me and let me serve as an example to you lest you trust too much in the love that your husband feels for you, in the honor and comfort that you have now, lest you not commend yourself to God, who can preserve your well being and also, whenever it might please Him, put you in the same state in which I am. For I would rather die than see you there, for fear that you could not withstand such pains as I have had and continue to have, which, I tell myself, without His aid, I would not be able to endure. Your good mother, Catherine.

12. December 19, 1560 (Vol. 1) To My Daughter the Catholic Queen. [no secretary] Madame my daughter, I was so troubled when I wrote to you the other day about the loss of your brother, and it was from fear lest the pain that I felt be passed on to you that I was unable to write what I greatly desire you to do for your brother, who is now at this moment king, as well as for this kingdom. This is why I now send this porter to the ambassador to tell you, my dearest daughter, that since you love us, you should take pains to encourage the king, your husband, in the goodwill that he showed toward the late kings, your father and your brother, and also particularly to me. Assure him that, for as long as I shall live, he shall know nothing from our side but friendship and good understanding, and let him be assured that I will nourish the king my son in this goodwill and that especially as I now have the authority and government of this kingdom, he should be all the more sure that there will be no occasion to change our goodwill. Although I am obliged to have the King of Navarre at my side, since the laws of the kingdom insist that when the king is young the princes of the blood should be beside the mother,28 neverthe27. “Three little children” (“trois petits enfans”). Catherine refers here only to her remaining sons, not her daughters. 28. Catherine is somewhat evasive here. Regency practice was grounded in both custom and law governing property administration, which distinguished between two types of guardianship. Tutelle, or the guardianship and education of a minor under the age of fourteen, allowed a tutor to administer property within his own discretion. Curatelle, or the administration of the property, was given to a

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 73 less there should be no doubt [about my authority], for the King of Navarre is so obedient to me and takes no other order than that which I permit him. Thus, [the king your husband] can trust him as he does me. I am also recalling monsieur the constable29 and the old counselors of the kings your grandfather and father. With this council by my side, I hope that all things will go so well for the honor of God and for the religion and repose and peace of this kingdom that [the king your husband], whom I love and honor like the king my own son, and all the other Christian princes, will have occasion to be content. My daughter, my dearest, you see the affliction that it pleases God to send me, which is the greatest that has ever been sent to anyone. Nevertheless, with all my misfortunes, He does me the grace to see your brother honored and obeyed, and myself too, and this kingdom peaceful and united, which is a great comfort to me. But the greatest comfort is the hope that I have in you, who will encourage the king your husband in the peace in which the king your father left this kingdom. I am confident that you will undertake all the good offices possible and which the ambassador will tell you are necessary, like the present one, and that all our fortune and happiness will depend on the friendship between the king your brother and the king your husband. I wanted to send all this to you so that, when the circumstance arises, having been forewarned, as you will be by this letter, you will not forget to do all that the ambassador tells you to do. Send me news of yourself, for I have great desire to know of it, for fear lest you not be as wise in this affliction as I wish for your health, which I desire and pray that God will keep and preserve for you.30 Your good mother, Catherine.

curator for girls from the age of twelve and boys from fourteen to twenty-five. The curator advised or administered on an as-needed basis, but with limits on his administrative powers; he could be penalized with requirements to compensate his ward for administrative errors on his part. Regency drew on the language of both tutelle and curatelle. The guardianship and education of the young king was customarily given over to the mother, drawing on the language of tutelle. Administration of the kingdom drew more on the practice and juridical language of curatelle, and was deemed more appropriately assigned to the princes of the blood or men of similar rank. Catherine’s wording does not distinguish between the two roles, and instead suggests that princes of the blood should perform an advising role to the mother. On tutelle and curatelle see Katherine Crawford, Perilous Performances: Gender and Regency in Early Modern France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), p. 221, n. 42. 29. Anne de Montmorency (1493–1567), constable of France, a principal advisor to François Ier and Henri II. 30. Elisabeth had suffered a bout with smallpox; see Négociations, lettres et pièces diverses relatives au règne de François II, tirées du portefeuille de Sébastien de L’Aubespine, évêque de Limoges, ed. Louis Paris (Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1841).

74 Letters of Catherine de Médicis 13. December 19, 1560 (Vol. 1) To Monsieur de Limoges.31 Monsieur de Limoges, you will have learned from the latest dispatch of the misfortune that has befallen us. I am certain that you have judged how much this (in addition to my other troubles) has worsened my afflictions, which I would not be able to endure without the abundant grace of Our Lord. But as I know that He does all for the best, I have resolved myself to receive all things from Him agreeably and to praise and thank Him for what it has pleased Him to send me. I strive to nourish and raise the young king that He has left me as best I can with His help, to His honor and glory, and for the good of the people that He has put in the king’s power, for it has been found to be good by all the princes of the blood, the lords of the council and other great personages of this kingdom, that the principal and sovereign authority remain with me. About this matter I must tell you that the King of Navarre, who is the first prince of the blood, and to whom the laws of the kingdom give great advantage, has behaved so graciously and nobly toward me that I have great occasion to be contented by it, as he has completely put himself in my hands and stripped himself of power and authority under my good pleasure. He has not forgotten, however, that after me he holds the first rank in the kingdom, as is reasonable, which has been found and judged to be good by all the other princes and lords, whom I strove to bring together in friendship and good intelligence. Such that, with all things of the past forgotten,32 they think only of the good of my son and of his kingdom. I resolved myself as well to do nothing without their good counsel and to use it so well that, with the help of Our Lord, I hope to redress gently all that the malice of the past has spoiled in this kingdom. Moreover, Monsieur de Limoges, I think of nothing else, and employ all means to keep each and everyone happy and spare no pain, care, travail or any other respect that a mother should have if she is mindful of her child’s well-being, of the protection of his good servants, and of those that I judge useful in maintaining and advancing his grandeur. So it is that, when I consider how unfortunate it is that this farce plays out for so many people without there being a single person who does not scowl at it; and when I consider how much one should fear the diversity of opinions stirred up by the numerous passions that fill this world, especially lest such a sudden change be felt quickly by the whole world, as I fear,

31. Sébastien de Laubespine (or L’Aubespine), bishop of Limoges, and ambassador to the court of Philip II of Spain. His brother was secretary of state Claude II de Laubespine, to whom Catherine refers at the end of this letter (see also note 19 above). 32. As Catherine writes: “toutes choses du passé oubliées.” This falls in line with a rhetoric and, later, a policy of deliberate “forgetting” that recurs throughout the religious wars. See Andrea Frisch, “Montaigne and the Ethics of Memory,” L’Esprit créateur 46, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 23–31.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 75 principally by those who used to hold the first rank33; and because I know that the King of Navarre is not well liked by the Catholic King my good son, it seemed necessary to me to send this dispatch to you directly, in order to anticipate all that might be told to him underhandedly. I send with it only a letter for the queen my daughter, whom I warn about all of this, so that she can inform the king her husband (as I beseech you to do as well) that the King of Navarre’s position is under me and my authority, and that I have done nothing regarding him or the other princes of the blood who were called to the council except for what was necessary. But I have won him over so well that I dispose of him just as it pleases me. Assure the Catholic King that I will give such orders for as long as it may please God to keep me alive, such that this kingdom, and all who live here, will be no less devoted and affectionate to him as they have been in the past, and even more than they ever were, now that I have the power that I do and love him as I do. For I have resolved to consider nothing in the world as important as nourishing the king my son in the perpetual love that I desire to see between them [Charles IX and Philip II], since I esteem him [Philip II] to be a protective father. I beseech him never to think anything contrary to this, whatever else one might report to him. And if ever he has any doubt, or if he ever thinks of anything that he wants clarified, let him do me the pleasure, for the sake of our perfect, maternal and filial friendship, to write to me privately. He should trust in my guarantee that there will be nothing in this kingdom about which I do not make him entirely content. You know what I wrote to you about via your brother regarding the marriage that was brewing here.34 I have since found out that it is going forward. Be watchful in this matter to discover what is involved, and use, Monsieur de Limoges, all your intelligence to emphasize all that I have written above for the Catholic King. Prevent him from taking a bad view of the new change, which was forced, as they say, for I believe I have done much in this extreme misfortune to establish myself so firmly that I can say there is nothing here that is not at my disposition. For, in addition to the goodwill of the princes, the affection of the people toward me is such that they believe it to be greatly fortunate that Our Lord, wishing to take their prince, has left me here to govern the next one, who is so well born and of such good character that they hope much good and consolation will come from him, as you can tell him [Philip II]. You know how important this is. I beseech you once again to perform in this regard every good and nimble office that you can, not only for the king, but also for those who are close to him, who could serve as contrary instruments. And warn me immediately using this messenger, whom you will send back to me without any dispatch other than your response 33. Catherine refers here to the Guises, who had enjoyed enormous power under François II, particularly in light of François’s marriage to their niece, Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland. 34. The potential marriage between the widowed Mary Stuart and Don Carlos, son of Philip II of Spain.

76 Letters of Catherine de Médicis to this one, everything that you may have learned about this matter, keeping my daughter well informed of the role that she must play for her part. I pray to God, Monsieur de Limoges, to keep you in His holy protection. From Orléans, this 19th day of December, 1560. Catherine. De L’Aubespine.

14. March 11, 1561 (Vol. 1) To Monsieur d’Estampes.35 My cousin, since I know that you are now at the conclusion of the Estates General, and I have no doubt that you have much to do there to guide things according to what you know is necessary for the establishment of my authority and to prevent the conspiracies and machinations that would move to hinder it, I want to warn you about what happened in Paris at the assembly of both the Third Estate and the nobility. There, four or five persons who have hardly anything to do with this matter intervened and disavowed everything that was done at Orléans as if to subvert those who had granted that gathering some power.36 From this they elected a governor of the kingdom who is the King of Navarre, and, if he does not wish to accept that role, then his brother.37 They dispossessed me of the government, leaving me the simple charge of feeding my children.38 From there they established 35. Jean de Brosse, duc d’Etampes and governor of Brittany (1505–64), husband of François Ier’s mistress, Anne de Pisselieu d’Heilly. 36. The Estates General had been called at Orléans in 1560 under François II at the instigation of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, who argued that both religious resolution and political goodwill were necessary for state security. François fell ill just as the deputies were arriving at Orléans. According to Knecht, Catherine feared an election would hand the regency to Navarre; she thus secured her position by promising to make him a lieutenant governor of the kingdom. The Estates General appear to have accepted this compromise, or at least did not feel they had the power to overturn the decision. The privy council ultimately sidestepped the Estates General and concluded the matter by naming Catherine “gouvernante” with sweeping powers: Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 73. Catherine’s position was formalized by an edict that required all officials to report to the queen mother, and all information “regarding justice, royal finances, and administration to be read by Catherine first.” However, after the Estates disbanded in January 1561, some delegates of the prévôté in Paris argued that, as he was first prince of the blood, Navarre could not simply renounce his rights to curatelle, or the administration of the young king’s government; see Crawford, Perilous Performances, 43–45. Catherine discusses much of this in her next letter (number 15). 37. Louis de Bourbon, prince de Condé. 38. In contrast to her earlier evasion regarding the distinction between the two, Catherine appears here to mock the customary distinction between the roles of tutelle and curatelle. The dismissive

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 77 a council which they filled with who knows how many unqualified gentlemen who have no experience and have never managed affairs, and they deposed all the former servants of the late king my lord. You can imagine, my cousin, what this means, and what shame and dishonor I feel at seeing myself deprived and dispossessed of the authority that was given to me, to which all the princes had consented and which I think was justly conceded to me. I would prefer them to take away my life along with my honor rather than make me beg. Because I cannot believe that such support for the faction that wishes to blacken me is as strong in all the parts of the kingdom as it was for this small number of the people, I do not hope to find as much trouble elsewhere as I suffer in Paris. In order to heal this, if this letter reaches you in time, my cousin, in light of all that you have ever done for me and of the promise of friendship that you know I feel for you, and the affection and devotion that you have always shown to me, I beseech you to prove your fidelity to me by preventing this reduction of my authority and confirming the authority that was accorded to me and ratified at Orléans. In this I entreat you to omit nothing and to not fail in sending me directly, using a messenger that you must send expressly for this purpose, news of what you have done and what will happen next. And clarify if anyone has sent out any reports, which is what they sent everywhere to bring about this machination. I am praying God, my cousin, to keep you in His holy and worthy protection. From Fontainebleau, the ____ day of March 1560 (1561).39 [On the back] To M. d’Estampes the _____ of March 1560.

15. March 27, 1561 (Vol. 1) To Monsieur de Limoges. Monsieur de Limoges, we wrote to you on the 14th of this month the letters here enclosed, thinking that my cousin, the comte d’Eu, needed to leave right away for the trip that he is presently undertaking. Nevertheless, since he was having trouble arranging the particulars of his marriage, I was very happy that he delayed his departure until after he had put them in order. However, I do not want to conceal from you my extreme distress, which I will tell you about in detail, all the more since I am sure you have heard many diverse opinions about this that have greatly troubled you. You should thus know that, after I emerged from the work I was undertaking to reconcile my cousin the prince de Condé with monsieur de reference to “feeding” her children seems ironic given Catherine’s own rhetoric of “nourishing” the king in princely virtue and diplomatic amicitia. 39. The irregular dating appears in the original letter; see Lettres 1, 174.

78 Letters of Catherine de Médicis Guise, in which matter I put all of my efforts,40 I fell quite suddenly into an even greater labyrinth. It had been ordered at Orléans that the Estates assemble once again according to the particular provinces of this kingdom, to advise (following what had been proposed to them) on how to provide for the king my son and help him to succeed in his affairs. At the assembly of Paris, there were a few fools who undertook the most miserable intrigue in the world to deprive me of authority and government, and to give it to the King of Navarre. They proceeded so far in this that they felt confident, for they had worked for a long time at this scheme and found that many of them shared their opinion. The people of good quality did not want any part in this; they had heard this illegitimate intrigue spoken of in small company — which they could hardly do more publicly — and especially that there were only people of low rank who claimed to speak for all the other Estates. After hearing about this, and since I feared that the other parts of the kingdom would follow the example of the assembly of Paris, which is the capital city of this kingdom, I wanted to speak myself to the King of Navarre to find out if this had taken place at his instigation. I found it quite strange that after ceding me the authority, and after having this approved by all the Estates at Orléans, some fools would then want to take it from me. The King of Navarre answered that he was pleased with what he saw, for by this I would know what belonged to him and what he was doing for me in ceding me the authority. I answered that I knew very well what he was doing for me, but that to be obliged to him for something that would take away the honor that I thought belonged to me — this I could not abide for anything in the world. This dispute lasted for three or four days, with both sides in the most extreme contention, especially as he demanded two things: first, that he be made lieutenant general of the king for the entire kingdom, and second that monsieur de Guise be made to leave court in whatever way possible. I argued this last point infinitely, for I was incapable of doing something as shameful as send a prince of honor and virtue away from court, who had served the king my lord and this crown well, as if he were a miserable wretch. But the King of Navarre persisted so obstinately on this point that it was impossible for me to find a compromise. In the end, while messieurs of the Estates were crying out every which way, and while some approved of me and did not wish to diminish my authority while others who had been influenced wanted to hand it over to him, we were brought to an agreement through the intervention of my cousin madame de Montpensier, my cousin the constable, and the chancellor, who wrote down all the articles.41 By these I agreed that he would be lieutenant general of the king my 40. This is a reference to Catherine’s attempt to reconcile the prince de Condé with the Guises after the former was implicated in the Amboise conspiracy; his conviction and execution were thwarted only by the death of François II. 41. Jacqueline de Longwy, comtesse de Bar-sur-Seine, duchesse de Montpensier (1520–61); the constable, Anne de Montmorency; the chancellor, Michel de l’Hôpital.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 79 son for the entire kingdom and command under me all the military forces, just as monsieur de Guise did during the time of the late king my son.42 With this done, he promises to cede to me, through an agreement signed by his hand on his own behalf as well as that of his brothers whom he had also sign and ratify it, all the power and authority that could be attributed to them by the Estates. He consents that I command in absolute terms everywhere in the kingdom without prohibiting me or giving me any trouble. I still retain the principal authority to dispose of all the estates of this kingdom, to assign offices and benefices, to command the seal, dispatches, and finances. In this way we have pacified all our differences, and we are now the best friends in the world, despite the fact that the Estates wanted to sow discord between us. We are making known to the Estates the union and accord that is between us, and demand expressly that they not speak in their assembly of the power of either one faction or the other, for we are in agreement about it. They should speak only of the way in which they might assist the king my son. To this end, we will convene the Estates again, for the previous assembly was deemed illegitimate by the majority of the provinces of this kingdom, and we will push this back until the end of July. In the meantime we will go to Reims to crown the king my son on the 11th of May. From there we will have him make his entry into Paris, the first day of June, which is an event so greatly desired by a good number of our most dear servants that we think it will pacify many minds who desire some new event. These two letters, then, Monsieur de Limoges, will give you ample discourse on the state in which we find ourselves since the departure of your last messenger, a time, I would say, that was more dangerous and difficult to resolve than any other that has presented itself. If the king monsieur my son43 gets wind of this and you see that he is troubled by it, you must tell him the truth of it, assuring him well that, if I had found myself in such an extreme situation that I needed to employ the help of my faithful friends to preserve my authority and maintain my children, he would have held the first rank among all of them. My chief recourse in this affair would have been my confidence that he would not have abandoned me with his help and succor, nor endured any wrongdoing toward me. But, God be thanked, all things have composed and pacified themselves with so much grace and good intelligence that, if this continues to go as I hope it will, we will be beyond all these confusions in which I have found myself ever since the death of the late king my son. I must tell you the good office that the sieur de Chantonnay did for me during this time by visiting me twice in two days. He came regularly to offer me his services and to ask what I wished him to do, assuring me that he would make all these same good demonstrations in any place that I wished. And not only would he uphold whatever language I would tell him to use, but when the time was right, he would perform 42. François II. 43. Philip II.

80 Letters of Catherine de Médicis whatever office for the king his master that would be agreeable to our tight alliance and perfect friendship.44 For this I beseech you, Monsieur de Limoges, to thank with great affection the king my son45 on my behalf, for I am sure that this proceeds from the goodwill that he is thought to feel for me and for the care that he has for my well-being and repose.46 This is why I am sending this dispatch and courier to you directly, to make known to you the discourse of all that has happened, and to free you from the pain that you may have suffered because of the troubles that have travailed me during these last few days. I want also to thank the King of Spain, which will give him reason at another time, if a similar occasion presents itself, to do even more. You will also speak to the queen my daughter and make known to her all of the above, which at that point will be a thing of the past. I pray to God, Monsieur de Limoges, that He keep you in His holy and worthy protection. From Fontainebleau, this ------ day of ------ (March) ------ 1560 (1561). Catherine. [On the back] This 27th day of March 1560 (1561).

44. Thomas Perrenot de Chantonnay (1521–71) was Philip II’s ambassador to France. The letter is vague. Catherine may be alluding here to the “alliance and perfect friendship” between herself and Spain, or between herself and the King of Navarre, toward which Chantonnay is pledging to assist. The editors of the collected correspondence include the following missive from Chantonnay to the duchesse de Parme, explaining the context of the affair (Lettres 1, p. 178, n. 2): “All of the offices that I have done for the queen mother for the preservation of her authority would have been useless had it not been for the workings of madame de Montpensier and others who are in good standing with her; she would not have come to agreement again with the duc de Vendôme [Antoine de Bourbon], making him lieutenant general of all the men of war in this kingdom and standing by him in all affairs, such that she in these matters has no more authority than he. The members of the council will give their advice when the two of them demand it; those members who favor the house of Vendôme are thus elevated so high that I cannot say whether they will abide by this, for it seems to me that by degrees the queen will arrive at a place where she has nothing but the governing of the person of the king her son [tutelle], and God willing that she knows how to preserve herself in that role. I do not know if all this comes from the offices of the constable, for the day that this resolution was made, he was ensconced for a long time in the queen’s cabinet with her, and afterward they called for monsieur de Guise, who is keeping his title of grand master among others on the condition that he recognize [the authority of] none other but the king, although since the king is a child and himself dependent on others, it is clear that the grand master will have to obey them as well. When the constable was speaking to someone about this, he said that it was necessary to comply with the sieur de Vendôme [Antoine de Bourbon] in some things, which implied that he thought it necessary to do all this for the good of the queen, which made me believe that all this was done by his advice.” 45. Philip II. 46. Catherine appears to give Limoges the language of goodwill, friendship, and affection that she wants her ambassador to use when presenting the situation to the King of Spain.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 81 16. April 21, 1561 (Vol. 10) To Monsieur the Bishop of Limoges, Counselor and Master of Requests in the Palace of the King my Son, and his Ambassador to the Catholic King of Spain. Monsieur de Limoges, I saw your dispatch of the 11th of this month and principally the letter that the queen my daughter received from the king, my son and her husband,47 about what I recently wrote to you and which you and she have discussed with Rui Gomez.48 I am greatly pleased by the noble offers and good offices that the King of Spain wishes to send me as well as by his desire to see my authority and grandeur affirmed.49 I am confirming and establishing my authority as well I can, so much so that, with God’s help, there will be no need for me to call upon any help other than what we can provide for ourselves. With things going so well, it will be easy for me to gain time and thus avoid the troubles that the king my son [Philip II of Spain] seems to fear. Now this is no small task, as you can imagine, for the passions and affections of many are so diverse that it requires the great grace of God and an unbelievable dexterity to escape them and to involve only those whom the affair concerns. Towards this I am all the more sure that it is necessary to use every means….50 Among which I have thought of one way that would serve me better than all other things in the world, I think. Because of the perfect trust that I have in you, I wanted to tell you about this through this messenger, who has been sent expressly for this purpose. I wish no other person alive except for you and your brother to know about it, until I can see what might be hoped to come from it. It is that I have never been able to rid myself of the desire that I have always had to see the king my son [Philip II], and at present this desire grows ever greater because of the good that I think it would do both for this kingdom and for myself; of which I will explain the principal points. You know, Monsieur de Limoges, the great and jealous enmity that the king my son [Philip II] has for the King of Navarre, and his fear that Navarre’s current 47. Philip II of Spain. A note on the translation: At several moments in this letter, Catherine refers to “the king my son” when she is speaking of Philip II rather than Charles IX. We have chosen to maintain her original wording rather than substitute “Philip” or “the King of Spain,” even if the latter choices eliminate confusion; Catherine’s wording emphasizes her own maternal relationship to Philip as his mother-in-law and constructs the connection among kingdoms along maternal-filial lines. 48. Rui Gómez de Silva (1516–73), Portuguese nobleman and a chief counselor of Philip II of Spain. 49. As Catherine writes: “honnestes offres et bons offices” — “honnestes” in the double sense, no doubt, of transparent and truthful as well as noble and virtuous. 50. The editors of the Lettres include the following note: “What follows in the dispatch is in code; but we have had the good fortune to find, in another manuscript, the original with indication of which passages were to be encoded, which has allowed us to entirely reconstruct this curious correspondence.” Their two source copies are listed in Lettres 10, p. 36, n. 2, and p. 37, n. 1. The editors note that the two texts differ in a few places. We have translated the letter as it has been reconstructed in the printed correspondence.

82 Letters of Catherine de Médicis position would augment his authority and thus diminish my own. He fears this would make Navarre seek the interests of his own kingdom and fan the fire to ignite a war, and moreover bring to the fore the question of religion, which is so troubled at this time.51 These are the two points that the king my son [Philip II], prudent as he is, thinks about more than anything else. Now, if I could be assured of seeing him, which could only take place toward the end of this year, this would nevertheless be a way for me to restrain the King of Navarre on both these points, feeding him with the hope that this meeting would bring some justice to bear on his claim [regarding the kingdom of Navarre], but also feeding him with fear in order to make the King of Navarre and all who encourage him, and consequently the entire kingdom, more restrained in the question of religion.52 Moreover, if the marriage of my daughter the Queen of Scots goes forward under the terms that we believe, this would discourage the King of Navarre and suspend the pursuit of his claim.53 And in this way, if we are able to see each other, not without bringing along my little daughter,54 perhaps I can get out of it what I desire. There are rumors circulating, and the news of this meeting would restrain and cool off all the plots and conspiracies that could by chance be done by the King of Spain to the disadvantage of this kingdom, or by others who would be happy to see this kingdom troubled.55 If I saw that he was disposed to the practice of the religious orders, about which you have sent me the packets, and which is something I have very much at heart, I would make an overture to him about it, which I desire to do. By happenstance this would be such a bargain between us that we would draw from it both profit and advancement for both houses, and then we could gain a foothold so as to exalt them even further. This favor would be of no small service to him for the tranquility of his affairs in the Levant, as would the awe it would inspire in the rest of Christendom, which, as you know, hangs only upon the opinions and tranquility of these two royal houses. Being unified in one cause, it would be easy for us to impose whatever law we like; from which he would receive the lion’s share of the honor as the brother of the king my son [Charles IX], 51. Antoine de Bourbon hoped to reclaim Spanish Navarre, which Ferdinand of Aragon had seized from Jean d’Albret, King of Navarre, in 1513. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 61; Nicola Sutherland, Princes, Politics and Religion, 1547–1589 (London: Hambledon Press, 1984), 53–64. 52. “La religion” was often used in the period to refer to Protestantism. 53. The reference is again to a proposed marriage between Mary Stuart and Don Carlos of Spain. On Navarre’s claim, see note 58 below. Catherine appears to be playing her cards here and to attempt, by organizing a meeting with Philip II, to pacify both the King of Spain and the King of Navarre, each of whom might see his desires fulfilled (albeit in different ways) by such a meeting. 54. Marguerite de Valois, who was nine years old at the time. 55. The editors of the Lettres note the following: “Philip II did not respond to Catherine de Médicis’s advances. He so distrusted his mother-in-law that he never wanted to have an audience with her; it is because of this that he allowed his wife [Elisabeth] to travel alone to Bayonne in 1565.” Lettres 10, p. 37, n. 2.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 83 whom I would dedicate and nourish in his tender years toward such friendship and devotion that the King of Spain would never find him other than akin to his own child. I also have other children who would follow in the footsteps of this same devotion, and who are the proper instruments to do, in all the great things of the world, what [the King of Spain] and I judge to be useful and favorable in the support and fortification of this our mutual alliance and amiable intelligence. In all of these things God first will be served, and we would content our minds with what great princes always desire, which is to fear nothing, and have the means to bring each and every one to reason. The better to move my son [Philip II] to this end, I think you could not enter into any discussion more agreeable to him than the question of the [Reformed] religion and that of the King of Navarre, which are two points that vex him more than any other. As you are dexterous and discreet, and as you know the temperaments of those who could be useful, it would be necessary, Monsieur de Limoges, to communicate all of this to the queen my daughter,56 and instruct her well and warn her about what she needs to do for her part. Resolve yourself to also employ either the Duke of Alba57 or Rui Gomez along with her, and do not forget the confessor. Imprint them well with the idea that what I seek most in this matter is to find a way to contain the question of religion and to bring to order the King of Navarre, so that I may heal this wound that is Navarre’s quarrel, which will otherwise go on perpetually.58 The confessor should be told the same so that he 56. Elisabeth de Valois. 57. Fernando Alvarez de Toledo y Pimentel, Grand Duke of Alba (1507–82), principal advisor to Philip II, and his viceroy or deputy at different times in Naples, Milan, the Netherlands, and Portugal. 58. The editors of the Lettres add the following clarifying note in Vol. 10, p. 37, n. 2: “This affair of Navarre is difficult to elucidate: on the one hand the queen mother had everything to gain by satisfying Antoine de Bourbon, whom she had made the lieutenant general of the kingdom, and in her correspondence she insists that the King of Spain give him the compensation that he was asking for …; on the other hand, the counselors of the King of Navarre, Philippe de Lenoncourt and François Des Cars, in agreement with the Spanish envoy Don Manrique, pushed him hard to abandon his hereditary rights and accept in exchange the sovereignty of Sardinia or the principality of Sienna. The French faction, and even the Guises and the Catholics, did not favor this negotiation; and it seems that the bishop of Limoges shared their opinion. What is more, we find in the manuscript fr. 6617, f.151 a secret note without a signature, sent during this period to the French ambassador in Spain: Decoding of a letter fragment written in the name of the queen mother to the bishop of Limoges: ‘The queen mother has been warned by a reliable source that it was the following matter that gave cause to the Catholic King and his lords, who then made the overture to you and the King of Navarre for Lutaine to come here. Here is another reason for this porter’s voyage: the King of Navarre has let it be known that if one wishes to give him Sienna or Sardinia, he will give up and put into the hands of the king [of Spain] what remains to him of the lands of the kingdom of Navarre, a thing which, to the queen, does not seem to be appropriate for the good of this kingdom. In addition she cannot believe that he would give up such a certain thing [his inheritance] for such an uncertain one,

84 Letters of Catherine de Médicis may better serve in the question of religion. For these two matters could, in time, bring about trouble and danger. You can also take advantage of my desire for everyone to know that the Catholic King is taking the king my son [Charles] under his tutelage and protection, and that this disposes him, in his tender age, to love him all the more, knowing that what is conceived in youth can be altered later only with difficulty or not at all. On this point you can attend to all the ways in which you might achieve this meeting, which I desire more than anything else in the world for the fruit that I am sure would come of it, principally for myself and for this kingdom, for I see nothing that can put all these things in order except for this. I beseech you to consider this well and, above any other service that you ever desire to do for me, take heed to guide this in such a way that I may gain some satisfaction from it. To this end, advise me using this messenger, who will be ordered to return to your brother’s home. I have given him leave to go there for a few days, so that from there he can secretly make known to me the resolution that you have drawn from this. For, just after receiving your response, I will make no more arrangements regarding this. I know that the matter is disposed well enough to lead to this meeting as if unexpectedly, since I see from your letters that the king my son [Philip II] is set to go to the courts at Monzón this September. And toward the end of July, the entry of the king my son [Charles IX] will take place in Paris upon his return from his coronation at Rheims, where I am taking him next Monday to be crowned on the 11th of May. The Estates will adjourn around mid-August after which, depending on your answer, I could travel to Touraine under the guise of going to see Chenonceau.59 From there the King of Navarre wishes to take us to Gascony, to show the king my son [Charles IX] to his subjects. From there we will not be far, so that we could make the voyage that I so desire, of which I will not speak at all while we are in Gascony. Also, there will be but small company with us, and no one will think that the meeting was premeditated. Make them [the King of Spain and his advisors] understand well the good that the Catholic King would do for this kingdom, and consequently for Christendom, in acquiescing to this, for in this matter his own countries are no less at risk. And let the queen my daughter consider well all my reasons, and how much what I am seeking to do regards her and her own well-being, in order to open her mind to help in all possible ways, and decide whether the princess her sister-in-law could serve in this matter in any capacity. This will make her all the more disposed and one that is so far off. But in any case, she has ordered me to warn you of this, so that you may take pains to find out if this is possible. To speak frankly, the King of Navarre lets himself drift toward many things, in which those who love and honor him believe that he is ill advised, especially in confiding in this porter, whom you know better than anyone. And it does not please him when they tell him so.’ ” 59. Catherine famously took for herself the picturesque château of Chenonceau in the Loire valley after the death of Henri II, who had given it to his mistress Diane de Poitiers.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 85 to tell this princess that I would take the following path: if the marriage of the king my son [Charles] cannot go forward, at least make it so that the marriage of the Spanish prince her nephew does not fail, for by that union I would have some means. I know well, Monsieur de Limoges, that the Catholic King goes forward in all things carefully, but he will never receive better counsel than to make use of this present occasion, one that is guided by the public good and by my good and affectionate will toward him, whom I love as my own son. Which I say in earnest and, just as those who feel the sting of affliction must have hope of finding a remedy, perhaps he will one day understand that I do not speak of this except with good reason; which I believe you to be clearheaded enough to judge for yourself. These are gentle remedies that nonetheless carry great consequence. By chance, once he has put these remedies into place using his most cherished servants, would he wish to neglect them? This is not to say that there is anything deplorable or ruined in this kingdom, nor that I lack the power, authority, and obedience of others to make all things go as they should, whatever one might tell him over there. Nor should my son the Catholic King fear that he needs to intervene, as long as I hold, as I do, the two ends of the rope, whatever may happen in this kingdom that might displease him. But the wisdom of the world is to forestall the misfortunes that might arise, after having thoroughly discussed and considered the worst case. It would greatly please me if he understood this and could be assured that I feel no less affection for his well-being, tranquility, and contentment than I do for the king my own son, who is my own flesh and blood, and that in all that I do, think, and say for their regard, I do with an honest, sincere, and open heart. Your brother has told me, Monsieur de Limoges, not at this time, but on several previous occasions, that you feel the need to leave Spain for your health, especially because of the heat that you find so disagreeable: I would readily wish for this, and it greatly displeases me that you should feel this distress. But, given that the season is already so advanced and that it would be difficult for you to leave before the end of the hottest weather, and given the need I have of you in such an important matter, if you see that your stay there will not bring about greater inconvenience for you, I entreat you to be content to finish your stay as cheerfully as you began it, since you have only a little time left. Rest assured, I shall find a successor for you as soon as possible, after this matter has passed, to take your place and end the siege.60 I will have you know that I find your service for me so useful and agreeable that you will be rewarded for it, for I have decided to give you, via the first messenger who will be sent to you, as much money as we can of what is owed and has been accorded to you as recompense for your loss. I pray to God, Monsieur de Limoges, to grant your greatest wish. 60. The French phrase Catherine uses is “lever le siège,” as in “lift the siege.” She seems to be using the phrase as we have translated it here, to end the burden of diplomatic concerns assaulting her ambassador.

86 Letters of Catherine de Médicis Written at Fontainebleau, the 21st day of April, 1561. [In Catherine’s hand:] Monsieur de Limoges, your brother has told me the desire and need that you have to return; I entreat you, regarding the former, to stay until I have seen my children, and as for the latter, I will take pains so that you might not feel any: you must resolve yourself to this. Catherine. The following letters (17–20) to the prince de Condé were written two weeks after the Massacre of Wassy and on the threshold of the first War of Religion. They are of interest not only for the diplomatic ties they attempt to perform between Catherine and the prince de Condé, but also for the explanations in Catherine’s own hand included in copies of the letters sent to the bishop of Rennes, the French ambassador to the Holy Roman Empire. It is unclear when, exactly, these copies were sent to the bishop. 17. Between March 16 and March 26, 1562 (Vol. 1) To My Cousin, the Prince de Condé. My cousin, the baron de la Garde told me what you told him. I have so much confidence, my cousin, in what you say that I could not place more trust in myself, and will never forget what you are willing to do for the king my son and for me. So that the baron may return to you for the reasons that he will tell you, I will not write you a longer letter, and beseech you only to believe what he tells you on behalf of the woman whom you may trust as if she were your own mother, Who is your good cousin, Catherine. [Catherine’s explanation:] Monsieur le prince sent word to the queen that he wished to obey her, to which the queen responded that she placed great trust in what he said, and that to prove it, she asked him to leave Paris, and to come find her and the king her son, trusting that if he did so, the King of Navarre and the other lords who were in Paris would do the same.

18. Between March 16 and March 26, 1562 (Vol. 1) To my Cousin, Monsieur the Prince de Condé. My cousin, I spoke with the seigneur d’Ivoy as freely as if I were talking to you, trusting completely in his loyalty, and confident that he will say nothing to anyone other than yourself. I told him that you will never make allegations against me and will think only of safeguarding the children and the mother of the kingdom,

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 87 as you are the man whom this could harm, and whoever can assure this will never be forgotten. Burn this letter immediately. Your good cousin, Catherine. [Catherine’s explanation:] This letter was written because the queen had been warned that the King of Navarre and his lords were amassing armed men on all sides. For this reason, she entreated the prince de Condé to leave Paris,61 so that they would do the same, foreseeing very well that, if things went any further, it would be the ruin of the king, of herself, and of all the kingdom; she begs him not to be the cause of this ruin, especially as it would harm only him.

19. Between March 16 and March 26, 1562 (Vol. 1) To My Cousin, Monsieur the Prince de Condé. My cousin, I see so many things displeasing to me that, were it not for the trust that I put in God, and the confidence that I have that you will help me to preserve this kingdom and the service of the king my son, in spite of those who want to destroy everything, I would be angrier than I am. However, I hope that we will remedy everything with your good counsel and assistance. And since I have already given my opinion at length to the bearer of this message, I will not repeat it in this letter, and ask that you believe what he will tell you both62 on behalf of Your good cousin, Catherine. [Catherine’s explanation:] After the queen demanded an infinite number of times that the prince disarm, he responded that she was wrong and that she should be assured that if he were the first to leave Paris and put down his arms, she would see things that would displease her infinitely. She responded that she had already seen so many things that displeased her, for instance the taking up of arms against her will and the refusal to surrender them even though she had ordered it; that this would cause her great pain but for her hope that the prince would obey her and not do the same. And if, because of this tension over who would be the first to surrender arms, things continued as they were, she foresaw the ruin of the kingdom. If others wanted to 61. Condé did leave Paris on March 22. 62. It is unclear who the other recipient of the message is.

88 Letters of Catherine de Médicis destroy everything in refusing to disarm, she beseeched him not to do the same, trusting that if they were all together at the king’s side, they would assemble to take good counsel, with which all the ills that were foreseen for the future would be remedied. And if he were to consult the letter the queen sent after this one, after he had replied to her that he could not honorably be the first to disarm, it would be seen how she told him that honor goes to the man who is the first to obey, and not to the man who remains the last to disarm.

20. Between March 16 and March 26, 1562 (Vol. 1) To My Cousin, Monsieur the Prince de Condé. My cousin, I thank you for the trouble you have taken to send me your news as often as you do, and since I hope to see you soon, I will not write a longer letter. I only entreat you to be assured that I will never forget what you are doing for me, and if I die before I am able to reward you for it as I wish to, I will leave instructions about it to my children. I have told this messenger a few things that he should tell you, which I beseech you to believe, and I trust that you will understand that everything I am doing is to restore peace and tranquility, and which I know you desire as much as Your good cousin, Catherine. Please give my regards to your wife, mother-in-law, and uncle. [Catherine’s explanation:] This letter shows the intention behind the other letters, and clearly shows that everything she did was to make him leave Paris, which he claimed at the time of this letter that he was trying to do, in order to bring about peace.

Letters 21–23 address the marriage of Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre, and Marguerite de Valois, Catherine’s daughter.63 Problems of consanguinity required Catherine and the crown to seek a dispensation from the pope to go forward with the marriage, although the wedding took place before the dispensation was received. The wedding was performed on August 18. Admiral Gaspard de Coligny was shot and wounded on August 22, and his murder on the 24th incited the general massacre, now known as the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, in Paris.

63. Henri was the son of Antoine de Bourbon and Jeanne d’Albret. He had become King of Navarre in 1562 after the death of his father.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 89 21. August 19, 157264 (Vol. 4) To our Most Holy Father, the Pope.65 [no secretary] Most Holy Father, it is with great affection that I thank Your Holiness for the goodwill you have shown me through the letter written in your hand, which I received in the last few days. I beg you to believe that the king my son and I will always write to you with all the devotion and obedience that you could wish from us. I have great faith that Your Holiness, in your paternal goodness, will generously gratify us with the grace that comes from your authority, when the affairs of this kingdom require it, and in this faith we seek the help of Your Holiness. I hope that after hearing what the king my son had to say to you via his valet de chambre, you will delay no longer in approving the dispensation that we asked of Your Holiness for the marriage of my daughter to the King of Navarre. I hope as well that Your Holiness, knowing our just intentions, will take in the right spirit the solemnization of this marriage, which we have already celebrated because we could no longer defer it without running into misfortune, which the sieur de Feral, the ambassador of the king my son to Your Holiness, will tell you more about. I will say only to Your Holiness that you can be confident from beyond the borders of this kingdom in the trust we place in my daughter, along with what the king my son and myself will do to satisfy our desire to serve God, and put this marriage in your goodwill as it is in ours, knowing that it arises from such goodwill that we are sure that, with time, it will satisfy the demands Your Holiness has placed upon us. Which is why, for all these reasons and others that Your Holiness will hear from the ambassador, we have performed this marriage, assuring ourselves that, if it pleases Your Holiness to consider all our reasons and the state of this kingdom, you will judge this marriage necessary for the health and peace of the kingdom. Knowing this, you will confirm our just intentions and pay more heed to our needs than to the various difficulties brought forward by the artifice of those who would try to thwart the effects of our goodwill. However, let us return to entreat Your Holiness to have confidence in us and accord us the dispensation with this assurance: that we have done this only for the needs and good of this kingdom, and that we desire above all other things to satisfy Your Holiness, to honor God, and to continue to augment and

64. The date of this letter is of utmost importance, as it was the day after the wedding of Henri of Navarre and Marguerite de Valois took place, and before the attack on, and eventual murder of, Coligny. 65. Although Catherine deferentially addresses the pope in the third person throughout this letter, both in titles and in pronouns (e.g., “His Holiness”), she is inconsistent and sometimes employs the second person. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, we have consistently used the second person in pronouns and titles in the translation of this letter.

90 Letters of Catherine de Médicis restore His church in every part of this kingdom, which is the intention and desire of the king my son and of Your devoted and obedient daughter, Catherine. After the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in Paris66

22. August 27, 1572 (Vol. 4) To Monsieur the Vicomte de Horte. Monsieur le Vicomte, you will see in the letter that the king monsieur my son writes to you that we have received your letters and understood what is happening in your region. He received this news with satisfaction, and you could not do better than to continue to apprise him of what you learn. However, he commands that, should anything come to pass from this that I think might trouble the calm that has been so well established ever since the edict of pacification was issued, you should make them understand his intention and anything else you need to do, which order, I am confident, you know how to carry out, so I will not repeat it. I content myself in beseeching you to satisfy him as much as possible, and to make it so that everything within the breadth of your governance be contained and remitted in obedience to him, as good service to him requires.67 The following letter, in the name of Charles IX, was included with Catherine’s missive to the Vicomte de Horte.

23. August 27, 1572 (Vol. 4)68 I believe that you already know about the wounding of my cousin the admiral. As I was afterward pursuing the verification of the deed and the punishment of its perpetrator, in which nothing was neglected, it came about that those of the house of Guise and their followers among the other lords and gentlemen, who are numerous in this city as everyone knows, having found out that the friends 66. Few letters by Catherine exist on the events surrounding the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres. She seems to have been careful to allow the letters officially authored by Charles (of which we include samples here) to dictate the narrative around the massacre. It is also possible that any letters she may have written about these events were destroyed. 67. After dictating this letter, Catherine added: “Here is the letter of monseigneur in which you should change nothing, and in place of ‘king monsieur my son,’ put ‘the king monseigneur and brother’ ”: Lettres 4, p. 112, n. 1. 68. This letter is included as a footnote to Catherine’s, Lettres 4, p.112, n. 2.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 91 of the lord admiral wished to take revenge on them for this wounding, since they suspected the Guises were the cause of this act, stirred themselves up this past evening, so much so that among them there came to pass a great and lamentable sedition. They rushed the guards who had been ordered to surround the admiral’s house, and killed him along with several other gentlemen. Others were also massacred in several parts of the city, which was done with such great fury that it was not possible for us to remedy this as one might have desired. It was all I could do to employ my guards and other forces to keep me secure in this castle of the Louvre and to afterward give the command throughout the city for the appeasement of the sedition, which is, at present, quashed, thanks be to God, and which came about from the longstanding quarrel between these two houses. As I had always foreseen that this quarrel would produce some ill effect, I had previously done everything possible to appease it, as you know, for unless it was remedied, it was a thing that would alter the calm that had existed, until now, among my subjects ever since the edict of pacification. For your part, I take confidence in the breadth of your control, while you wait for my brother, the King of Navarre, or my cousin the maréchal de Savoy, both of whom cannot go there so quickly; order that the city of Bayonne be secured and that in this town let there arise no emotion among the inhabitants, nor should any massacres be committed among them, which is to be feared after they hear this news. And although there is nothing in this to rupture the edict of pacification, nevertheless it is to be feared that a few men, using this pretext, might seek their own particular vengeances. I would feel enormous sorrow if this were to take place, and thus beseech you to publish and make known throughout the regions under your governance that everyone must remain calm and safeguarded in this province and not take up arms, nor offend one another, under pain of death. And especially make it so that our edict of pacification be observed, and if anyone transgresses these orders, punish them by law and to this end, if it is necessary, assemble as many forces as you can to overrun them. Charles IX sent the following account, dated August 25, to the sieur de Schomberg, whom he deputized to explain the admiral’s murder to the German princes.69

23 bis. August 25, 1572 (Vol. 4) The king declares that, having learned that the admiral and his followers resolved to seek vengeance and attempt [to conspire] against His Majesty, the queen his mother, and messeigneurs his brothers, he consented that messieurs from the house of Guise, on the twenty-fourth of the month of August, kill the admiral and 69. Gaspard de Schomberg (1540–99) served as French ambassador to the German courts. The letter is included as a footnote to Catherine’s, Lettres 4, p. 113, continuation of n. 2.

92 Letters of Catherine de Médicis the others of his faction who had conspired and plotted this scheme. The same was done upon discovering in the Louvre, the night before these killings, the sieurs de Piles and Manneuil, who belong to this same faction and who had devised some plot against His Majesty. He is nevertheless aggrieved by this and has resolved for this reason to send word of this to messieurs the Count Palatine, Duke August of Saxony, Landgrave of Hesse, the Duke of Wirtemberg, Duke Casimir, and other princes, to whom the [sieur de] Schomberg will explain that this concerns neither a question of religion nor a break with the edict of pacification, and he continues to ask for their good friendship and affection.

24. August 28, 1572 (Vol. 4) To Monsieur my Son The Catholic King.70 [no secretary] Monsieur my son, I have no doubt that you feel as we do the good fortune that God has shown us in giving the king monsieur my son a way to rid himself of these insurgents, rebels against both God and king, and that it pleased Him to preserve the king and all of us from the cruelty of their hands. We are sure that you will praise God with us for this, as much for our own particular favor as for the good that will come of it for all of Christendom in the service, honor, and glory of God. We hope that soon we will know what is to come of this. To this effect we give proof of our good and just intentions, for we never had any other than to honor God. I rejoice all the more to think that this occasion will confirm and augment the friendship between Your Majesty and the king your brother, which is the thing that I most desire in this world, and I assure you and beseech you to trust that I will always perform the office of mother which I have the fortune of being for you both, for as long as I shall live. Because the king my son has charged his ambassador with telling you how all of this came to pass and the just cause that he had in doing this, I will let him speak to you of it and will close this letter, asking that Your Majesty not find it badly done that I commend the ambassador, via this messenger, Montaigne, to the infantas your daughters. And I will pray to God that He grant your greatest wish. From Paris, this 28th day of August, 1572 Your good mother and sister, Catherine.

70. This letter to Philip II of Spain was written six days after the first assassination attempt on Coligny and four days after the beginning of the more widespread massacre. As in her letter to the pope, Catherine occasionally addresses Philip in the third person out of deference. For the sake of clarity, we have translated the letter using second person pronouns throughout.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 93 The following letters (24–28) were composed just after the death of Charles IX. Catherine acted as regent during the interval between Charles’s death and Henri III’s return to France from Poland, where he had been elected king in 1573. 25. May 30, 1574 (Vol. 10) To the Estates of Poland. Most dear and great friends, The crown of France has received such honor from you in the election of our very dear lord and son as the King of Poland that this crown will never forget its feelings for the kingdom of Poland and for its people and Estates because of the good affection that they have shown it. We have so well participated in this (as mother), that we will always carry in our heart a complete goodly devotion toward you, with a perpetual desire to employ ourselves, as much as possible, toward the good, the grandeur, and the augmentation of the kingdom of Poland. In this we take well into account that the king, our lord and son, would fill his life and finish his last days with such a valiant and generous nation, and with arms expand its borders. Nevertheless it has come to pass, through the will of God (who disposes of human affairs according to His pleasure), that it has pleased Him to recall to Him the late King Charles IX, our very dear and beloved lord and son, to our great regret and suffering; this is the cause that your king, our lord and son, is today called to the succession of this kingdom of France, where each one of his good and loyal subjects infinitely desires him as his true and legitimate king. Toward this end we beseech you to assist our lord and son willingly in all ways possible to facilitate his return, while continuing your affection for this kingdom and making that affection known in times of need. Rest assured that by doing so, he will never forget the honor and favor that you have shown him in electing him your king, and that he will be no less useful a friend from this in any occasion that might present itself than if he had stayed with you. In so doing, you will not only augment the obligation that you have already won from him, but also all the Estates of this kingdom will feel for you an infinite goodwill. And with this, we pray to God, very dear and great friends, that He keep you in His holy and worthy protection. Written from the château of Vincennes, the 30th day of May 1574. Catherine.

94 Letters of Catherine de Médicis 26. May 31, 1574 (Vol. 4) To My Cousin Monsieur the Duke of Ferrara.71 My cousin, you have heard of the illness of the late king my son, who, recognizing in the end that God wished to recall him unto Himself, has given his last orders for the administration of the affairs of this kingdom and wished to give me the authority, while awaiting the return to France of my son, the King of Poland.72 Shortly afterward he gave up his soul and quitted the miseries of this life, leaving me beside myself with the pain that naturally a mother would have after the loss of the thing that was the most cherished and precious to her, and which makes me wish to leave and defer all affairs in order to find a little peace. Nevertheless, humbled by his final plea to me in his last wishes, namely that I embrace this office for the good of this crown to which I know myself to be bound by all that God has given me, I was constrained to accept this authority, hoping that (assisted by the goodwill of my son the duc d’Alençon, the King of Navarre, my son-in-law, and other princes and good servants of this crown), God will give me the grace to conduct all things with such moderation and with such good counsel that this disaster, as much as it may be the worst thing that could have occurred, will change nothing for the repose and tranquility of this state.73 This is what I wanted to tell you about, while assuring myself that you will share in this grief as much for the loss of the king, who held you in great affection, as for the friendship that you show toward this crown, one that I beseech you to continue. I would like to promise that the King of Poland, my lord and son, for his part, will always embrace the same affection that the deceased king had toward you, and he will be eager for any correspondence of friendship and good intelligence that you might desire, as will I, praying, my cousin, that the Creator has you in His safekeeping. Written in the château of the Bois de Vincennes, the last day of May. Your good cousin, Catherine.

71. The following letter is a sample of the type of diplomatic missive Catherine dispatched to reinforce alliances following the death of Charles IX and ease transition to the reign of Henri III. She had sent out similar letters both domestically and abroad after the death of François II. Alfonso II d’Este, Duke of Ferrara (1533–97), along with the Dukes of Savoy and Nevers, met Henri III in Venice as he returned from Warsaw to assume the French crown. 72. Henri III. 73. The duc d’Alençon is Catherine’s youngest son, François-Hercule, also referred to in Letter 27 below.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 95 27. May 31, 1574 (Vol. 4) To the King, Monsieur my Son. King of Poland. [no secretary] Monsieur my son, yesterday I sent Chemerault to you in great haste to bring you some news that distresses me, for I have seen so many of my children die. I pray God that He send me death before I see any more die, for I was desperate to see such a spectacle, especially the friendship that he [Charles IX] showed to me at the end, unable to leave me, begging me to send for you in all haste, and entreating me to accept willingly the governing of the kingdom before your return, and to bring justice to the prisoners that he knows to be the cause of all the evil in the kingdom. He knew that his brothers74 grieved for him, which made him believe that they would be obedient to me and to you after you arrived. Afterward, he bid me adieu and begged me to kiss him, which I thought would kill me. Never did a man die more fully aware,75 speaking to his brothers, to monsieur the cardinal de Bourbon, to the chancellor, to his secretary, to the captain of the guards, to both the archers and the Swiss guards, commanding them all to obey me as they would obey him until your arrival, and that he was sure that you would want it thus, beseeching them to serve you well and be faithful to you, conferring to all of them the kingdom and its safeguarding. He spoke repeatedly of your goodness, and said that you had always loved and obeyed him so well and never gave him cause for grief, but rather rendered him great service. As for the rest, he died, having received communion in the morning, bearing himself well, and at four o’clock he died, the best Christian man that ever was, having received all the sacraments. His last words were: “And my mother.” This was extremely painful for me, and I find no other consolation than that I will soon see you here and believe that God has taken you from a place that you desired to leave with more honor and grandeur than one could have imagined. And that neither the greatness nor the pleasure that you will have in being with us once more will keep you from feeling that you have lost a good brother who was a great support and that the world is big enough, and you and he together powerful enough, to make you both great and happy had this disaster not occurred. But because it pleases God to test me and visit me in this way so often, I praise Him and beseech Him to give me patience and the consolation of seeing you here very soon just as your kingdom requires; and in good health, for if it had been you whom I had just lost, I would have myself buried alive with you, for I could not endure such pain, which makes me beg you to look well over the route that you shall follow [on your journey home]. You will go to the Emperor and from there to Italy, which I believe 74. François, duc d’Anjou et d’Alençon, and Henri de Navarre. 75. Catherine writes of Charles’s “entendement” or “understanding,” and appears to emphasize that Charles was fully cognizant until the moment of his death. It was likely crucial for her to establish that he was fully conscious and of sound mind when he bequeathed the regency to her on his deathbed, in order to support her own authority.

96 Letters of Catherine de Médicis to be the safest path for you, for I do not think that Germany would be safe for you as King of France; they have too many quarrels to settle with you. However, I believe that if you took the other route and sent one of your gentlemen to visit these princes and explain that the haste with which you need to come here has made you take the other road;76 nevertheless, thank them for the good treatment that you have received during your journey and ask that they be your friends, just as you wish to be a friend to them. Ask that they continue this friendship they have shown you during your journey, and confirm it by the most trustworthy promises. Inquire whether it would be a good idea to send monsieur de Bellièvre ahead so that he might be able to arrange something with them that could bring you peace in your kingdom and, upon your arrival, he could come to report on what he might have learned; think about it.77 As for your departure from Poland, do not delay it in any way, and take care that they do not try to keep you there until they have ordered their affairs such that you do not leave, for we need you here. I am dying to see you again, for nothing can console me and make me forget what I have lost except for your presence. For you know how much I love you and, when I think that you will never leave us again, that makes me patiently accept all things. If you can leave someone in Poland who can govern such that this Polish kingdom can remain either yours or your brother’s, I would desire this. Tell them that either your brother [Alençon] or the second son that you will have will be sent to them, and that meanwhile they should govern themselves, always electing a Frenchman to assist them in anything that they do. I think they will readily agree to this, for they would act as kings themselves until they elect the one whom you will send; and that is a great thing, as poor as they may be, to be king of two great kingdoms, one that is very rich and the other of great breadth and nobility.78 That is what I think you should do in order not to lose anything. As for here, you see the grace that God gives you, God be blessed, and I pray for you that the experience, necessity, and travail that you have had may serve you in governing so wisely and so prudently that you may render it entirely to the honor of God first and foremost. Do not give way to the passions of your attendants, for you are no longer Monsieur whom they must flatter in order to be the favorite. You are the king, and this requires that they consider you the strongest, for it demands that they serve you and need to love all whom you love and to hate none except for those whom you hate. Let their particular quarrels bind them together and not impassion you, and do not let your attendants be lost. Love them and do well by them, but do 76. Syntactically, Catherine never appears to finish this thought. She is suggesting, however, what Henri III should do essentially to “cover up” his decision not to travel through Germany. 77. Pomponne de Bellièvre (1529–1607) was on several occasions French ambassador to Switzerland, and completed several other diplomatic missions for the French court. He was a trusted advisor of Catherine de Médicis and became chancellor of France in 1599. 78. Although Henri could not be King of Poland and King of France simultaneously, Catherine appears to seek a way for the house of Valois to maintain control over both kingdoms.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 97 not let their partialities be yours, for the love of God. Also I beseech you, do not give anything away before you arrive here, for then you will know who has served you well or not; I will name them and show them to you when you arrive, and you will keep all the profit from benefices and offices. We will tax them; for there is not a single écu that can be spared for what is needed to maintain your kingdom. I beg you to give away nothing, for there are people who are so avaricious that they are never satiated and contented. They must not have anything more, for since the late king your brother gave me the responsibility of maintaining this kingdom for you (I believe that you will not disavow it), I will do the best I can to give it back to you in its entirety and at peace, so that you only have to do what you already know for the sake of your grandeur and to give yourself a little pleasure after so much trouble and pain. I beg you to think about not giving all the estates to one man, as has been done in the past, for that displeased many people, and the experience that you have acquired on your voyage is such that I am assured that there will never be a wiser king. I pray to God to bless me and spare me from the appetite of those who know only how to live on their manure. For I hope that your election and stay in Poland will not have brought you any harm, nor any diminution in honor, grandeur, or reputation, and that any harm will be only to me who, since your departure, have had vexation after vexation. I think that your return will bring me joy and happiness after happiness and that I will have no more pain or quarrel. I pray to God to let this come to pass so that I may see you in good health and very soon, From the Bois de Vincennes, this last day of May, 1574. Your good and affectionate mother, if ever there was one in the world. Catherine.

28. May 31, 1574 (Vol. 4) To Monsieur de Matignon.79 Monsieur de Matignon, you have heard from the letter written to you not long ago by the late king my son what his last wishes were for the administration of the crown’s affairs, which he also intended to confirm through letters patent. Since then, it has pleased God to call him unto Himself. I have been so saddened and pained at his loss, since he was naturally the most dear and important person to me, that I desire nothing more than to hand over all affairs to seek out some tranquility. Nevertheless, humbled by the plea he made during his last wishes that I embrace this office for the good of the King of Poland my son, his legitimate successor and heir to the good of this crown, to which I am bound by all that God 79. Jacques II de Goÿon de Matignon (1525–98), marshal of France, lieutenant-general of Normandy under Charles IX, mayor of Bordeaux, and governor of Guyenne.

98 Letters of Catherine de Médicis has given me, I was constrained to take responsibility again for the administration and the regency that he committed to me, awaiting hither the arrival of my son the King of Poland, who will, I hope, arrive in France soon, as I gave the order to inform him immediately of this disaster. I assure myself that everyone knows the desire I have always had for the repose of this state, for which I have spared no pain, even at the risk of endangering my own person. Which everyone will recognize even more by the order that I hope to give to all things during his absence [of Henri III] with such moderation and good counsel by those of the highest rank, such as yourself, that I promise myself that God will bless this kingdom and establish some tranquility here. I beseech you, given the devotion and affection that you have always shown for the good and preservation of this kingdom, to keep your hand in place to stave off all enterprises that might trouble the public peace, and admonish the nobility and those of the other Estates to continue to persevere in the duty that they have always given with constancy to their kings and sovereigns, for which they are so commended by all nations. You know that the intention of the king my lord and son has always been to protect those who are disposed to live peacefully under the benefice of his laws and edicts. I know that this is also the wish of his successor, which I desire you to observe, in order to bid each person to seek out and procure that which regards the complete reunification of the kingdom. You will also assist in this through the force and authority you hold in your hands against those who would forget themselves and thus forego the obedience to which they are obliged, such that they may be chastised and punished and the obedient ones safeguarded as they deserve. I am praying, Monsieur de Matignon, that God keep you in His holy and worthy protection. Written at the Bois de Vincennes, the last day of May 1574. Catherine.

29. June 1, 1574 (Vol. 5) To the Sultan Selim II.80 Most high, most excellent, most powerful, most magnanimous and invincible prince, the great emperor of the Muslims, Sultan Selim, in whom all honor and virtue abounds, our most dear and perfect friend, may God augment your grandeur for most fortunate ends. We believe that Your Highness has already heard of 80. Selim II (1524–72), sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1566 until his death. The French had first cultivated an alliance with the Turks under François Ier in response to the imperialist ambitions of Charles V of Spain. For a succinct discussion of the relationship between the French and the Turks in the sixteenth century, see Michael Heath, “Unholy Alliance: Valois and Ottomans,” Renaissance Studies 3, no. 3 (1989): 303–15. As in her letter to the pope, Catherine combines a use of the third person and the second person; we have, again, consistently used the second person for the sake of simplicity.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 99 the illness that befell the late king our very dear lord and son, through which, in the end, it pleased God to recall him unto Himself. His loss is so great, since he was the most dear and precious to us, that as a mother we naturally feel extreme suffering and regret. Nevertheless, recognizing that this comes from the will of God, to which we desire to conform all our actions, we turn to His goodness to find the consolation that we need in this affliction, and have charged the sieur d’Acqs, resident ambassador in your Port, to share our grief and report this sad and unhappy misfortune. We are assured that Your Highness will be greatly displeased to have lost in our lord and son a complete and perfect friend, and beg you to maintain the same affection that you have always had toward this kingdom of France and to take faith in what the sieur d’Acqs will tell you on our behalf, as you would want from us. And to the most high, most excellent, most powerful, most magnanimous and invincible prince, our most dear and perfect friend, we pray to God that He augment your grandeur for most fortunate ends. Written in the royal castle at Vincennes, the first day of June 1574. Your good and perfect friend, Catherine. The following letters were among those written during and just following the time of Catherine’s journey to Nérac (1578–79), where she had been deputized by Henri III to pacify the south and negotiate with Henri of Navarre and the Huguenots, who had taken control of much of the Midi. Catherine was frequently frustrated by Protestant demands but, as the letters below attest, she continued to work with Protestant representatives until they came to an accord, in what is now known as the conference at Nérac. The final agreement drastically reduced the original demands of the Huguenots, who had asked for sixty surety towns, or towns under Protestant control. In the end, the crown agreed to give the Protestants fourteen surety towns for six months, and to establish a bipartisan court in neighboring Agen. 30. November 11, 1578 (Vol. 6) To the King Monsieur my Son. Monsieur my son, the sieur de la Mothe-Fénelon returned here yesterday, having assured me that the King of Navarre will arrive at Mauvezin today, which is not far from here, with the intention of joining our conference here, even though some of those who are with him and others of his religion, who are only those who do not wish for peace, sought to dissuade him.81 They have told him, according to what 81. Bertrand de Salignac, sieur de la Mothe-Fénelon (1523–89), French diplomat and an ambassador to England during the reigns of Charles IX and Henri III.

100 Letters of Catherine de Médicis la Mothe-Fénelon has heard, that he would not be safe here and that we wished to trap him. They persuaded him that this would be easy to do, as all inhabitants of this little town are Catholics and it is so close to Toulouse, where one could quickly assemble an army. They told him that, to all appearances, this was already happening, to the tune of five or six thousand men, and that at least he should come here well guarded. But thanks to the advice of la Mothe-Fénelon, he willingly overlooked all that, saying that he was sure that his wife would not deceive him, and that at least he needed no escort to be with her.82 I thus hope that he will come here, where my daughter will be as well, as she left yesterday from Toulouse, in good health, and came to stay the night at Pibrac. She planned to come today to spend the night here, which in my opinion would mean that the King of Navarre would also come here more willingly. He excused himself, in the letters for me that he gave to la Mothe, explaining that he was delayed because he was waiting for the deputies of their churches. He explained that, unless they spoke to each other, they would not be able to do anything in this matter. The sieur de la Mothe has perceived, and indeed it is easy to see, that he does not command such great authority over all of them that he can be sure to be obeyed in everything, if their deputies do not especially consent to it. I do fear that this will prolong our negotiation. Nevertheless I am resolved, for such a good and necessary task, to be patient and to seek by every means to bring this to a conclusion so that your edict may be executed, without changing or diminishing anything that you or I desire, or for the peace and union of all your subjects, whatever trouble or conspiracy may present itself from one side or the other to impede this great and necessary good, which, I trust, I will arrive at with God’s help. For, according to what I also learned from the sieur de la Mothe, the King of Navarre, for his part, and many of the deputies of the towns wish for this as well. It is true they have told him that it will be quite difficult to return the towns they are occupying in place of those that have been given to them in custody. For in some of the towns there are people who do not and will not easily obey the King of Navarre to give them back. It will be difficult to remove them and necessary to find some kind of course of action for this, for I can see clearly that this is the principal point that will stymie our conference. In discussing this with the sieur de la Mothe, they have said that if it pleases you to give in custody some of the towns to a few of the principal men among them, they would be obliged to give them back in two or three months, or some longer period of time that would be decided, and that upon entering into these towns and taking over the authority there, they would be able to give you a better account of what is going on there. But I think that they want this only to have absolute power and thus to control several towns that they sense are moving away from their side, and which desire nothing more (according to what 82. The King of Navarre’s wife, Marguerite de Valois, Catherine’s daughter, was instrumental to this accord between the crown and the Protestants.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 101 I have learned) than to escape from the great subjection in which the nobility of this party [the Protestants] seeks to hold them. I believe that, when they are well assured that peace is coming, they will demand nothing more than what you have commanded for them, which is what they should do, frankly, if they are wise. We should think on that, which is of great importance, and I beseech you, Monsieur my son, to send me your intentions. However, I assure you that I will seek every means possible to dispose them to restore and return all the towns, as they should do following your edict. If I know that the King of Navarre does not have such great authority among the most obstinate of that side, I am considering making arrangements so that he will agree for us to negotiate with them in particular. For, as the sieur de la Mothe also told me, the King of Navarre has also made it clear that he desires peace to be established, saying moreover that, when we have brought this about, he will go himself to assist those whom you will send to make the stubborn submit, if that is what is desired. Let it please God that we come to this conclusion, for I have great hope that, in a short while, this peace will be established. Yesterday, when speaking with my cousin the duc de Montpensier and the maréchal de Biron, I told them that, after we have resolved everything that is needed for the execution of the edict, which I hope we will do within a few days, the sieur maréchal, who already possesses your commission and charge for its execution, should leave immediately, and the sieur de Turenne should go to those of the [Reformed] religion, to proceed diligently with the execution of the edict throughout Guyenne.83 And the sieur de Joyeuse, along with a few of the principal men of their religion, would leave to do the same in Languedoc. I, however, would go to Nérac, where I would stay a few days with my son and my daughter, the King and Queen of Navarre, so that I can see our resolutions put into effect in Guyenne and Languedoc with my own eyes. And if there were any difficulties, at least the King of Navarre and I together could together provide for and remedy them. However, the road will be open in Languedoc to allow me to pass safely into Provence; for I could not, nor would it be reasonable for me to, leave this country without first leaving the execution of your edict and all other things well established for the good of your service. And then, with this done, and with the road open in Languedoc, I would travel through Provence and the Dauphiné, where I would not fail to continue to write and to do everything possible to reconcile the affair between the sieur de Suze and the sieur de Carcès, news of whom I expect very soon. I declared these thoughts, which I think you will find to be good ones, in front of the maréchal de Biron, so that he would resolve himself to them. From what he revealed through his responses, I suspected that, although he claims to wish for this as well at least in words, it is not clear if he actually does in effect, 83. Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne (1555–1623), duc de Bouillon and vicomte de Turenne, was a prominent Huguenot who took part in the conference at Nérac. He was related to Catherine through her mother’s family.

102 Letters of Catherine de Médicis or if another should take charge of executing what I hope we will conclude. As I have often told you, I beseech you to excuse my long letters. For I do and think of nothing that I do not describe for you, so that you understand everything as if you saw them with your own eyes from here, where I am sure that you recognize well that these are the most important of all your matters of state. I do this to conserve the authority that God has granted you and gain the affection of your subjects, who were and still are so divided that, if peace is not established here, everything will be in a very bad state and you will be in danger of losing much. I am sending you an opinion on several particularities, which I had written down. These were gathered from among those who side with the King of Navarre, by which you will see many things of great consideration. I defer to this written counsel, and I will not elaborate any further. I will also tell you that, besides the letter that I am writing to your brother, the duc d’Anjou, through Roquetaillade, the copy of which I sent you through Mollé, I am sending him my advice in writing, as he requested, on the articles that were proposed for the marriage between himself and the Queen of England.84 I wanted to send them to you as well, and they will be enclosed in this packet, so that it may please you to see them and to command your principal advisors to call the counselors of my son [Anjou] to see them as well, so that everything is done under your authority, as is reasonable and necessary. This is what I am writing to my son the duc d’Anjou, who will not fail to solicit my opinion and follow my advice. I pray to God, Monsieur my son, that He keep you in His holy protection. Written at the Isle en Jourdain, the 11th day of November, 1578.

31. February 8 and 9, 1579 (Vol. 6) To the King Monsieur my Son. Monsieur my son, since I took medicine yesterday to purge myself, I put off until today my meeting with the King of Navarre my son and the deputies to learn what they have to say about the answers to their admonitions and articles, which I both gave them in writing and told them directly in person. This afternoon, I also assembled the cardinal de Bourbon, the prince dauphin,85 and the other lords of 84. Negotiations to contract a marriage between Elizabeth of England and François, duc d’Anjou et d’Alençon, began in 1578. The appearance of a possible alliance between France and England, as well as the influence it would allow her to exert on the Dutch revolt against Spain, made the marriage appealing to Elizabeth, but the negotiations ultimately floundered. See Natalie Mears, “Love-making and Diplomacy: Elizabeth I and the Anjou Marriage Negotiations, c. 1578–1582,” History 86, no. 284 (October 2001): 442–66. 85. The “prince dauphin” was the style conventionally given to François de Bourbon, dauphin d’Auvergne (1542–92), duc de Montpensier as of 1582; not to be confused with Henri de Bourbon,

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 103 your council, along with my daughter the Queen of Navarre by my side, where the King of Navarre, who came as usual with his followers, sat between myself and my daughter. Scorbiac gave their speech, this time quite feebly, as they are people who speak against reason and their conscience, which, I think, Scorbiac knew quite well, for he said nothing that seemed to excuse them from keeping me here so long, except that he briefly mentioned the surprises of La Réole and of Lauzerte.86 Pursuing his purpose, he sought to prove, but with very little justification, that they had good reason to wish for the practice of their religion throughout the kingdom, as well as the augmentation of the number of judges and chambers of the edict. He also asked that these judges be made equal, instead of tripartite, and he claimed that they had just occasion to demand other things to guarantee their safety. And, using the example of an emperor who condemned a man while he was asleep, only to absolve him the instant he awakened, he asked in conclusion that it please me, along with those of your council, to revisit and consider at length their admonitions and articles, or at least give them leave to return to their provinces with our responses and to ask for more fulsome powers [to enforce the edict]. I asked the King of Navarre and the others to withdraw, so that I might discuss this matter with the members of the council. Before asking them to give their opinion, I made them understand that I did not wish in any way to augment or diminish your edict, knowing that your intention was to observe each and every point exactly, and that, as they knew, the reason for my voyage [to Nérac], besides bringing my daughter the Queen of Navarre to her husband, was because you also desired me to execute the edict, believing that my presence (since I have the honor of being your mother) would bring much authority to bear on the matter, and that, since I had already done so much, I would desire to finish this good work. In conclusion, I asked them to advise what we would need to do for this so as not to break off the conference with these men [the Protestants]. Each one of them gave his opinion, including on Scorbiac’s response to my proposal; and as I was the King of Navarre, heir to the crown of France. François de Bourbon was the son of Jacqueline de Longwy, mentioned above in note 41. 86. Guichard de Scorbiac, or d’Escorbiac (1527–1608), a distinguished lawyer from the Protestant stronghold of Montauban. On La Réole and Lauzerte, Robert J. Sealy notes Catherine’s mediating tactics. In 1578, before the conference at Nérac, “the Protestant stronghold of La Réole, which had been assigned to the Huguenots by the treaty of 1577, was seized by the Catholics. In reprisal, the King of Navarre occupied the Catholic town of Fleurance. Catherine promised her son-in-law, in the name of the Catholics, the restoration of La Réole: he in turn did the same for Fleurance (November 30) and both parties fixed the date for the meeting at Nérac to be December 10. Before this assembly could occur the Catholics occupied another Protestant city, Lauzerte, which the leader of the Protestant party interpreted as a concerted plot on the part of the Catholic party to wipe out the Calvinists. The Queen Mother managed to resolve this confrontation quickly and, with the restitution of La Réole on January 16, 1579, the conference could open.” See Sealy, The Palace Academy of Henry II (Geneva: Droz, 1978), 135.

104 Letters of Catherine de Médicis last to give my opinion, I concluded and resolved that in my answer to the King of Navarre and the deputies, I would use these same words about the cause of my voyage here and about the return of my daughter to him. I would say that, without regard for my age or the length of the journey, nor for the intemperate weather, but simply because of my great desire to be a mother to all your subjects, I came to this part of the country to execute the edict. And although I have experienced many delays and indignities here, nevertheless I did not wish to end these talks. However it needed to be resolved that your edict, which they had concluded with the duc de Montpensier and swore solemnly to uphold, must be executed and observed as you intended, and they should take advantage of the good which some of them dismissed, which was to establish peace. For by this you show well that you loved them better than some of them loved themselves. For, grace be to God, you had means at the ready to execute the edict. In this matter those among them who wished for this peace should join up against those who would refuse it, and in conclusion they should look at what they hope to achieve in this and at what I would be granting them. For I agreed to what they had requested, namely that they deputize a few of them to consider this proposal and give their opinion on it again, in greater detail, tomorrow morning. I told them again that I did not accept or wish to augment or diminish anything in the edict. After this, the King of Navarre asked if they could withdraw to deliberate together so as to give me a response, which they did after much discussion, and we have agreed to begin tomorrow at seven o’clock in the morning. I do not know what else to tell you about our conference except that I fear that these men might again wish to prolong things, since they gave this pretext of wanting to return and take up more fulsome powers, for I know well that most of them already have ample and clear enough powers to execute the edict and nothing else. I was also told that we have made them discuss and agree to completely different points than what they had desired, and even that Bouchart, the prince de Condé’s deputy, said so out loud. From what I understand it is true that his master is jealous of the favor and credit that the King of Navarre gives to the vicomte de Turenne, and of his great authority among those of the religion.87 We will see what can be done with them, and I will waste no time in this. For I infinitely desire to reach a good resolution so that we can then implement it, and so I can return to you (following what you wrote me via the abbé Guadaigne). This is what I desire more than I can say, for I am weary of not seeing you for so long. Guadaigne gave me your letters dated the 26th and 29th of last month [January], to which I have no response except on the matter of the voyage to Portugal.88 On this I would tell you that since you have resolved to send the sieur 87. Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne, mentioned above in note 83. 88. Following the death of Sebastian of Portugal in 1578, Catherine independently claimed that she was the rightful heir to the Portuguese throne, although the claim was distant. She sent a French

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 105 de Beauvais-Nangis there, I would beseech you to do so as soon as possible, and to let him visit me here en route so that he can take my instructions with him. For whoever has charge of my particular affairs must go in your name and under the guise of the visit and congratulations that you are sending to the king of that country. But if the sieur de Beauvais were to be delayed or if he could not depart as quickly as necessary, for he should in fact already be there, I beseech you to send me your letters and instructions so I can send the bishop of Comminges. I had chosen him for this trip, believing that, given the state and condition of the current King of Portugal, a prelate of the church and a man of letters would be more fitting to discuss and negotiate with him than a ranked and reputable man of war like the sieur de Beauvais, who in traveling there might bring some shadows and jealousy with him. Nevertheless, Monsieur my son, I give you all these considerations, and, if it pleases you for the bishop of Comminges to go there, please send him your letters promptly, with an order to the General Receipt of Bordeaux to send him the money for his journey, which we will find a way to advance him. For, as you wrote to me yourself, the assembly is taking place at Lisbon to declare the successor of the crown, during which I would very much desire that my claim, which you saw in the copies that I sent to you, be made and negotiated with the necessary justification and dexterity. It would be no small thing if these things came together. If I could have this good fortune on my side as concerns my claim (which is not a small one), I would have brought that kingdom of Portugal to the French. I am sure that the sieur de Beauvais will acquit himself worthily in pursuit of this claim if he could arrive there in time, and if there were not the little doubts about him for the reasons I have described above. Nonetheless, I give this over to you and beseech you (if you wish Beauvais to make this voyage) to have him come here quickly, while confirming for you that I had myself chosen the sieur de Comminges, considering that his vocation is well suited to this negotiation, as he is also a man of letters and can advocate for my rights very well. I am praying God, Monsieur my son, to keep you in His holy and worthy protection. Written at Nérac, on Sunday, the 8th day of February 1579. Catherine added this postscript the following evening, February 9. Monsieur my son, after this letter was written, and after yesterday’s resolution, we assembled this morning in my chamber with the vicomte de Turenne, Bouchart, and the six deputies, who are Vignolles, Scorbiac, Delaplace, Lamer, Bérault, and Dupont. And after Vignolles made a little speech, in which he insisted that we fleet to assert Portuguese control of the Azores islands, which Philip II had claimed as part of an Iberian union. Alan James has argued that, although the French fleet was defeated, the campaign demonstrated the extent of French royal authority, partially in response to challenges to that authority made by both Huguenots and radical Catholics in the early 1580s: “A French Armada? The Azores Campaigns, 1580–1583,” The Historical Journal 55, no. 1 (March 2012), 5–6, 20.

106 Letters of Catherine de Médicis grant them the right to preach everywhere, I made him see in my answer that what they were demanding was to their disadvantage, if they thought about it, for many veritable reasons which I told them and with which they did not disagree. Laplace spoke afterward for some time as well as Scorbiac, Lamer, and Bérauld. The sieurs de Valence, de Foix, and de Puibrac and the sieur de Laussac answered them repeatedly, and myself as well occasionally, as did the sieurs de Saint-Sulpice, de la Mothe, and de Clermont-Lodève. I also do not want to forget to tell you about the cardinal de Bourbon who was angered that Laplace wished to speak of how those of the religion in Rouen are prevented from worshiping. Although he said very little to them, I assure you that on this point he gave them an earful, saying that the Catholics of his bishopric were very obedient to you and would never do anything against your intentions; in passing he made it clear, again very much to the point, that the Catholics of Rouen were respectable people and that they had not brought the English to France. We again disputed this article heatedly, for this is the first and most important article. In the end they saw quite well that they would gain nothing in pressing me about it, and with that we went to dinner. Immediately afterward we returned to our conference and spoke again of the article and it is clear they will be satisfied with it. They began to speak again about it to the King of Navarre and to the other deputies, and showed clearly that they no longer wished to insist on this point. I also told them clearly that for this article, as for several others, I could not, should not, and did not wish to violate your edict in any way, but as for the measures of security and other things that they asked for in conformity with your edict, I would gratify all the requests that were found to be reasonable, as much as I could. Thus we again revisited the articles and admonitions that were presented to me, and the responses that I had given them on each article. They showed me the difficulties that they found in my responses, and I, along with members of your council, explained our reasons to them, such that we have now settled eight of these articles, which you will see in the summary that I am sending you. I hope that we will continue tomorrow, and that God will give us the grace to do something for the good, and quickly. At least this is what they promise me. But I will not believe anything until I actually see it done. The 9th of February 1579, in the evening.

32. May 8, 1579 (Vol. 6) To my Cousin, the Duchesse d’Uzès.89 [no secretary] My dearest friend, I did not respond earlier to your letters, for I wanted to wait so that I could tell you that I am returning to France, for which I thank God, 89. Louise de Clermont-Tallard (1504–96), one of Catherine’s favorites, as well as a friend and correspondent of Elizabeth I of England. She had been governess to Charles IX.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 107 having left Guyenne in peace. The King of Navarre, who accompanied me up to a point near here, has been assuring me the whole day that he will keep this region together, from which I hope for as much tranquility as one may desire in these provinces. Yesterday morning I bid adieu to my daughter, his wife, which gave me great remorse; but when I think that it has been nine and a half months since I have seen the king my son, I assure you that I was greatly comforted to think that in one month I will see him again.90 I left her in such good terms with her husband, and with so much goodwill in her heart to do nothing but serve the king her brother in all these actions and affairs, that I leave to come see you with great contentment. And if it were not for the plague, I would bring you news of your lands, but Uzès and all the surrounding regions are so full of plague that even the birds passing through have died. This has made me take the route from Agen between the swamps and the sea, where we had to sleep in tents for two nights, and we will make camp in the service of my king, whom I greatly desire to see again in good health. As for me, I am well, except that at Port-Sainte-Marie I caught a cold that is irritating me, and has now turned into a sciatica. This does not keep me from traveling, although not so well that I do not need a little mule to carry me sometimes. I think the king will laugh when he sees me walking next to him like the old maréchal de Cossé.91 But whoever lives must grow old, and should be happy not to have more things that affect good health. You have a sedan chair and I a mule, for I prefer to travel far. Arrange for me to be well received, and send me often any news, especially news of the king and queen, and that my son [Anjou] has governed himself wisely. All that I desire is to see them both married, and to see the king with children, for which I pray to God. From Carcassonne, this 8th day of May 1579. With all my affection for you.

33. April 21, 1580 (Vol. 7) To Monsieur my Son, the King of Navarre. My son, I cannot believe it possible that you wish to cause the ruin of this kingdom, for it will be ruined and so will you if war begins. I beseech you to consider who you are and what good could come to you if this state is ruined, and that those who are making you do these terrible things have no love for you. They must be people who have caused so much trouble that they cannot feel safe unless 90. Catherine writes: “je aurés cet bien,” or literally, “I will have this good again,” upon seeing the king. 91. Artus de Cossé-Brissac, comte de Secondigny (1512–82), marshal of France and a principal advisor to both Charles IX and Henri III. The joke is that Catherine, thanks to the mule and her illness, will be limping along like the marshal.

108 Letters of Catherine de Médicis they see everything in disarray, and have no concern for either your well-being or your honor and the reputation that comes of it, which are the things that princes should cherish the most. What occasion has the king given you to do this? He asks that you keep what you promised and swore to him, about which we were all content.92 For it was not a law nor an order that he gave you, through the power that God gave him over all of his subjects and that he wishes for you, in spite of yourself, to make everyone keep. Rather it is a peace accord and treaty made and debated between one peer and another. And, as you yourself agreed to it, he did not seek to do anything to enforce it, but rather, as you have sworn to it with goodwill and have agreed to it, it should be obeyed, if he seeks to maintain it and if you seek to maintain it for your part. It is quite a bad beginning and pretext to all this to take up arms. I am sure that all those of your religion, since they know (for it is the truth) that the king wishes for his part to maintain the edict, and as they are respectable people, will reunite with their king to overrun those who wish to trouble the tranquility of the public and this state. If God has so abandoned you in this that it is true you were the cause of this trouble and commanded it, I am sure that He would not help or assist you and that you would find yourself alone, accompanied by brigands and people who by their wicked deeds have earned the noose. I will never believe that, as you descend from such a noble race, you would wish to be the chief and general of the brigands, thieves, and villains of this kingdom. This idea cannot enter my heart, which makes me hope that all the rumors that you are behind this are false, and that those who are doing it, seeing themselves abandoned not only by your shadow but by your person, as reason demands of you, will esteem themselves very fortunate to withdraw as soon as possible. I beg you, for the love that I bear you, to excuse what I am about to tell you: that if you do not make known how much this displeases you, then you are the most ill counseled and disgraced prince that ever was. For no one will ever trust anything you say or promise again if you take up arms everywhere, which is what you have proposed to the king without awaiting his response. Consider that as you are putting yourself in the place of another, you will answer for what he does in turn. Now, my son, I beseech you to believe those who wish you well, lest you do harm to yourself. For you are harmed more by those who, for their own interests, advise you badly since they have so much power over you as to make you commit such a wrong. I beg you to not let them bring this to bear on all the people of this kingdom, to have a little regard for what kind of people these are and what they are in the habit of doing, to consider what will come of their advice, and to not allow yourself to succumb so much to their passion that you have cause to wish them as much ill as you now wish them well. These faults are not such sins that the penitence cannot be as prompt as the repentance; but all this is nothing once the first blow is struck. I beseech you to believe me and to restore all things as 92. Catherine refers here to the agreements made during the so-called conference at Nérac.

Letters of Catherine de Médicis 109 reason demands, or at least as it was when Fontenilles left, and to execute what the king bids you through him and Ravignan, so that this poor kingdom can remain at peace, and so that there can be no cause to say that you have troubled it.93 You will get neither honor nor profit by it. I beseech you to believe me, and you will see the difference there is in the advice of a mother who loves you from that of those who love neither themselves nor their master, but seek only to pillage, ruin, and spoil everything. I pray that God makes you take this advice. From Chenonceau, this 21st day of April 1580. Your good mother, Catherine.

93. Philippe de La Roche, baron de Fontenilles, was gentleman of the king’s chamber; the sieur de Ravignan was president of the King of Navarre’s council in Paris; Lettres 7, 253, n. 1.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors on the Affairs of France in the Sixteenth Century, Selections1 Marino Cavalli, 15462 (Vol. 1, 286) The dauphin is twenty-eight years old.3 He is of a very robust constitution, and quite capable in the practice of arms. He is of a rather melancholic disposition; he is not very eloquent, but he responds very resolutely. And he abides by what he calls “etiam mordicus” because he is very firm in his opinions.4 He does not possess the sharpest mind, and is more inclined to be slow than quick-witted. Often such men succeed marvelously: it is like the autumn fruits that ripen late but are more useful to the world than those early fruits of the spring or summer. He is committed to keeping one foot in Italy and thinks that they should never give up Piedmont. He talks to the Italians who are unhappy with the business of their country. He spends his money in a way that is both wise and honorable. He is not overly interested in women, for his own wife suffices for him, along with 1. Lead translator: Leah L. Chang. The following accounts are all included, in Italian and in French translation, in Relations des ambassadeurs vénitiens sur les affaires de France au XVI siècle, 2 vols., ed. and trans. M.N. Tommaseo (Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1838). The translations here are based on the original Italian texts. The headers identifying the author of each report are taken directly from Tommaseo. The accounts are addressed to the Doge and Senate in Venice. A complete collection of the original reports, in Italian, may be found in Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato (Florence: Clio, 1839), and online at http://www.storiadivenezia.net. Numbers in parentheses at the beginning of each selection below indicate the page in the Tommaseo volume on which the selection (in the original Italian) begins. For the sake of clarity, brief explanations of the content and context of certain reports are given in brackets. These relazioni should be distinguished from the much shorter and less narrative day-to-day dispatches by Venetian and other European ambassadors that were sent to communicate events as they occurred. An example of this kind of dispatch (as opposed to a relazione) appears at the end of this section. Venetian dispatches of this kind have remained largely untranslated into English. An English summary (but not a direct translation), along with the original Italian, of selected dispatches may be found in Despatches of Michele Suriano and Marc’Antonio Barbaro, Venetian Ambassadors at the Court of France, 1560–1563, ed. for the Huguenot Society of London by Henry Layard (Lymington: Printed by C.T. King, 1891). 2. Marino Cavalli, Venetian ambassador to France during the reign of Henri II. Cavalli’s account of Catherine is minimal, couched in indirect terms in his portrait of the dauphin. This selection suggests the level of attention she commanded from early envoys to France as opposed to those in France during her regency and beyond. The entry is also curious for its juxtaposition with Cavalli’s portrait of Diane de Poitiers, Henri II’s mistress. 3. The future Henri II. 4. “Etiam mordicus”—with tenacity.

111

112 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors the company and conversation of madame the sénéchale de Normandie, who is forty-eight years old.5 He feels a true affection for her; but it is thought that there is nothing lascivious in it, that their relation is like that between mother and son. This lady has undertaken to teach, correct, and counsel monsieur le dauphin, and to spur him toward thoughts and actions that are worthy of him. Her effect on him has been quite successful: as mocking and vain as he was before, and quite unaffectionate toward his wife, he has become quite another man. He has also corrected himself of other minor faults of his youth. He loves military exercises and attends them in person. He is admired by all for his courage, of which he already gave proof during the campaigns of Perpignan and in Champagne. Giovanni Cappello, Ambassador to France in 1554 (Vol. 1, 372) His Majesty [Henri II] is thirty-six years old, tall, and of good stature, with a very handsome and pleasing face. He is well proportioned and of somewhat dark coloring. He has delightful manners and is affable and courteous: he deigns to speak to any comer, however humble. No less praiseworthy is the modesty of the most serene queen, who is a young lady of thirty-five years, but not very beautiful. She has bulging eyes and a pronounced lip, and she resembles her great uncle, who was Pope Leo X.6 She loves the king, her husband, as much as one can imagine. She always dresses in the most modest and sober way. She is Catholic and very pious: when the king is on campaign, she dresses in dark and lugubrious colors along with her entire court, and she exhorts everyone to pronounce most devout orations, praying to the Lord our God for the felicity and prosperity of the absent king. From this most serene queen His most Christian Majesty has three sons. The first, called the “dauphin,” is ten years old.7 He is well proportioned and of handsome countenance; he has honorable habits, but is stingy by nature, and is not really fond of letters, which displeases His Majesty. Therefore, to teach him elegant ways, he has given him excellent preceptors who principally instruct him never to refuse what is asked of him, so that through long and continual exercise 5. Diane de Poitiers (1499–1566), Henri’s mistress and the widow of Louis de Brézé, who had been the governor and grand sénéchal (grand steward) of Normandy. Diane, who was twenty years older than Henri, was one of his key advisors, and the most powerful woman at court during his reign. Cavalli claimed Henri’s relationship with Diane to be a platonic, even maternal-filial one. R.J. Knecht argues that Cavalli was likely convinced by Diane’s own propaganda: Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici (New York: Addison Wesley, 1998), 30. Nevertheless, Cavalli’s insistence on the innocent nature of the relationship suggests he was aware of rumors to the contrary. 6. Leo X (1475–1521), born Giovanni de Medici, son of Lorenzo de Medici. Leo pledged support of François’s ambitions in Naples, thereby recovering papal authority over the Gallican church. 7. François, the future François II.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 113 he becomes used to royal liberality and majesty: but in spite of all this he is not really succeeding. He was given for a wife the Queen of Scots, who was brought to France a long time ago, and who is very beautiful and endowed with such elegant manners that everyone who sees her marvels at her qualities.8 The dauphin is also very pleased with her and enjoys speaking with her and being in her company. He has 50,000 ducats a year for his personal expenses. The second son, who is the duc d’Orléans, is very handsome and has a generous heart.9 He loves letters and is virtuous: our age should expect as much from him as has been hoped for of any other prince. The third son, born shortly before my arrival in France, seems to be equally good-looking; but he is slightly impeded in his speech.10 In addition to the three male children, His Majesty has three female ones.11 And since he is still young, as is the most serene queen, and sees himself already flush with children, he fears having more children than he would want, such that he will be unable to leave for each one the inheritance that his generous soul would wish for. Giovanni Michiel, Venetian Ambassador to France, after Returning from His Legation in 156112 (Vol. 1, 424) I will now speak of the government of the kingdom, in which consists all the administration during the time of the king’s [Charles IX’s] tutelage, which the French call the minority of the king, and which will only come to an end when he is fourteen years old. This consists, as Your Serenity13 has heard, of the queen mother, the King of Navarre, and ten of the most important princes, all approved by the consensus and authority of the three orders of the kingdom—the clergy, the nobility, and the common people—which in France are called the Estates. The Estates were assembled in order to determine who would govern, even though 8. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots (1542–87). The daughter of James V of Scotland and his French wife, Marie de Guise. James V died when Mary was a newborn, leaving Scotland in the care of regents. Betrothed to the French dauphin François as an infant, Mary was sent to the French court in 1548; she was thus effectively raised in France. She was queen consort of France during the short reign of François II. 9. The future Charles IX. 10. The reference is to the future Henri III; Catherine’s fourth son, Louis, was born before Cappello’s arrival but died in infancy. The youngest son, François-Hercule, duc d’Alençon, was not born until 1555. 11. Elisabeth de Valois, future Queen of Spain; Claude de Valois, who married Charles de Lorraine; and Marguerite de Valois, who married Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre. 12. Michiel was also sent to the court of France in 1572 to lobby against war with Spain. See his later account (1575) of Catherine below. 13. The Doge in Venice, who along with the Venetian Senate was the recipient of the reports.

114 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors they were convened for a different reason during the life of the late king. The queen is the first among them, as much by authority as by the dignity of her station. It would be superfluous to recount to Your Serenity from whom and whence she came. Everyone knows that she is from Florence and from the house of the Medici, that she is named Catherine, is forty-three years old, and is esteemed to be good, charitable, and of great modesty and intelligence, capable of managing any affair, and especially the affairs of state, which is a quality that is seen to be proper and natural to the intelligence of the house of Medici. As for her quality as a mother, she entirely governs the person of the king. He listens to no one else, since this power does not reasonably belong to anyone else, and for this reason she does not allow anyone other than herself to sleep in his room with him. She never leaves his side. Moreover, she obtained (as a great and unaccustomed favor, although there was some resistance) the title and name of regent, thanks to the skill with which she knows how to treat everyone, and particularly the nobility, by whom she has always been loved and revered.14 I have called this a favor, given not only that she is foreign, and thus envied (which she herself frankly admits), but also that she is not of great noble stock, or descended from a great prince or king, since her father, Lorenzo de Medici, was only a private gentleman of Florence, even though he was the nephew of Leo X and had the title of Duke of Urbino. As regent, she leads the government with full and absolute power, as if she were king. She distributes all charges and benefices and accords grace; she keeps the seal that imprints the king’s signature and that is called a cachet; she is the last to give her opinion in the council, and then answers in accordance with the council’s decisions, or with her own. She opens all letters to the king from ambassadors and other ministers. Although up to this point (because she wished to appear so) this queen has been considered shy, and has undertaken nothing important, she is deemed to be a naturally big-hearted and courageous woman. She demonstrated this during this past year upon the death of the king, whom she loved in singular fashion, as she was in turn extraordinarily loved and esteemed by him. However, when she saw that he had no hope of surviving, without giving way to her own grief and even forgetting it completely, she fearlessly went out the next day to dine in public, and to give audience to all comers, immediately assuming all authority over affairs. It was with great prudence that she intervened between the Guises and the King of Navarre, reconciling them, at least to all appearances, in order to prevent their hatred and open discord from creating a new problem that would upset the kingdom and the new, young king. She conducted herself, as Your Serenity can see, not as a woman, but rather as a most courageous man

14. Compare this statement with the accusations of the Discours merveilleux and other polemical pamphlets (see our Appendix) that claim Catherine’s objective is to eliminate the French nobility, and Brantôme’s “Discours” for an opposing view that is more consonant with this diplomatic one.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 115 and consummate ruler of kingdoms.15 In addition, I hear from persons who have known her very well for a long time that her thoughts are quite profound, and that she does not let herself be easily understood; like Leo X and others who come from the house of Medici, she knows well how to feign and dissimulate. This was especially seen in the detention of the prince de Condé.16 Not only did she show no ill disposition against him, but she deceived the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon, the cardinal de Bourbon, and others who spoke in Condé’s favor; she used the sweetest words in the world with them, and told them that if Condé came to court, he would be received well and even better; and then she committed the act that Your Serenity heard of, treating him without the respect due to the lowliest gentleman in this kingdom, much less a prince, and moreover a prince of the blood. The queen mother serves her own pleasures, is disorderly in her manner of living, eats and drinks a lot. But she believes she remedies this with great physical exercise, which she takes through walking, riding, and always being on the move, and, though it sounds strange, by hunting. Last year, she never left the king. She hunted deer with him and—though it sounds incredible—even delved into the deep woods, or forest, as the French call it, which is a very dangerous thing for those who are not well skilled and strong in riding because of the density of the trunks and branches. In spite of all this exercise, since her complexion is still ashen or olive and her figure enormously stout, the doctors do not take a very good view of her health. She spends widely, and is more prodigal than generous since she does not keep track of her money; she has also been in debt for some time, and her affairs are in disorder. However, since the beginning of her widowhood, her annuity is 300,000 francs per year, that is to say, double the annuity that any other dowager queen has ever received. Because of this she possesses what she needs not only to pay her debts, but to spend more lavishly than ever. This is what I have to say concerning the queen. As for the others who take part in the government, they can be divided into two factions: the house of Guise, and the house of Bourbon. The Bourbons are a house of royal blood, of which the King of Navarre is the head; he and his brothers are the closest heirs to the throne of France. Before he acquired the title of king, the King of Navarre took 15. This attribution to Catherine of the masculine qualities of courage, intellectual strength, and even physical prowess is common among the Venetian ambassadors. 16. After rumors had circulated that Condé was raising an army against the crown, François II called Condé to court to answer for his activities. Antoine de Bourbon persuaded his brother to come to court, where he was charged with lèse-majesté and imprisoned. Knecht reports that although he was found guilty, “two of his judges—l’Hôpital and du Mortier (both significantly devoted to Catherine)— failed to sign his death sentence.” This allowed for Condé’s survival just at the time that the king fell ill. Catherine used the interlude to secure the regency in her name, pacify Navarre with his appointment as lieutenant governor, and reconcile Navarre with the Guises. The king died on December 5, and Condé’s life was spared. See Knecht, Catherine de’Medici, 71–72.

116 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors his name from the house of Vendôme, as he inherited the estates and property of his mother, who was from this house and who married under the condition that her heir would take its name. This house has gone extinct with the death of the vidame de Chartres, which took place this year.17 The King of Navarre is a man of forty-four to forty-five years of age. His beard is already graying and his build is more handsome than that of his brothers, who are of small stature and badly built, whereas he is of more ordinary height. He is well built, robust, and renowned for the courage he showed in battle, considered a better soldier than captain. However, he is included among the most important captains of the kingdom, and in this he cedes nothing to either monsieur de Guise or the constable. He is affable toward everyone, without pomp. He has a free and open way about him in the style of the French. He is very generous with what he has and is so giving that he never has anything left, or rather he is always in debt. Through these two qualities of affability and generosity, he has won over everyone, principally the nobles, by whom he is extremely loved. He is reputed to be of good mind and converses quite well when it comes to words; as for actions, however, he is considered vain, imprudent, and inconstant. It is thought he does not have the capabilities to undertake great enterprises and to pursue his grand designs. He is believed to be not only suspect in his beliefs but even entirely estranged from the matter of religion, as he let himself be convinced to renounce the mass and follow all the rites of Geneva. However, everyone agrees that he did this more to incite division in the kingdom, and to become himself the head of a faction, than from any belief or zeal for this religion. The Protestants themselves believe him to be a hypocrite and dissimulator, who will accommodate himself to anything if it brings him some advantage. This is because he let himself be persuaded to return to a Catholic life and to send to Rome to offer public obedience to the pope, with no other purpose than to not do differently than the Kings of France and of Spain. The brothers of this king are, as Your Serenity knows, the cardinal de Bourbon, who takes his name after the family, and the prince de Condé. In matters of religion, the two are completely divided. The cardinal is considered one of the best Catholics in this kingdom. The prince de Condé, on the contrary, is held to be one of the most contaminated by the Protestant religion; he unfailingly incites all those who have been corrupted by it as much as he can, with the aim, like Navarre, of creating for himself a faction against the Guises, of whom he is the declared enemy because he claims it is their fault that he has been excluded from political affairs. He was the head of the conspiracies that took place under the pretext of religion, but with the principal goal of murdering the Guises.18 But without a doubt, 17. The vidame de Chartres referred to here is the Protestant François de Vendôme, a relative of the prince de Condé. He had been imprisoned in the Bastille at the instigation of the Guises, and died a few months later in December 1560. 18. This is a reference to the Amboise conspiracy.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 117 if the king had not died, he would have made much trouble with his actions and would have made even worse trouble for others, and brought grief upon the constable’s entire house while putting even his own person at risk. For, according to reports by those in the know, everything that the prince de Condé did and thought during this conspiracy was done with the knowledge and advice of the constable.19 But the death of the king put an end to all this, almost miraculously. Returning to the government, the prince de Condé is (after the queen and the King of Navarre) the first in dignity and authority in the kingdom. He occupies almost the same role as if the queen were king and as if he held the same position that the constable occupied during the reign of Henri II, and that the cardinal de Lorraine held during the reign of François II. It is the prince de Condé whom everyone seeks out after the queen. In addition to his brother the cardinal de Bourbon, who has his own part in the government, those in the faction of the prince de Condé are the other princes of the blood, including the duc de Montpensier and his brother the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon, who are the nephews of the same duc de Bourbon who served the Emperor during the reign of François Ier and who died at the siege of Rome. The duc de Montpensier is reputed to be a good person. He does not meddle much in affairs; but for everything that he does not do, his wife does even more.20 She is governess and the queen’s first lady of honor; she is in very good graces with the queen, is very intimate with her, and does everything that the queen desires. The prince de la Roche-sur-Yon is more ardent, more sharp-witted, and intercedes more in political affairs than the duke. But both of them are entirely dependent on the King of Navarre, and they never would do anything other than what he desired. In addition to these men, monsieur the constable is also among the followers of the Bourbons, although this occurred only recently. But he has been part of this faction since the death of Henri II, when the Guises showed themselves to be his enemies. In the past, there was little love lost between him and the King of Navarre, but as they were both wronged by the Guises during the same period, they have since joined together to become the best of friends. And monsieur the constable is healthier than ever, notwithstanding his advanced age. He is over seventy years old, but in such good form that one can believe he has maintained the vigor of his mind no less than that of his body. As for his conduct and character, he is always the same and not a bit changed. Every day he acquires more authority in the government. This suggests that he has reconciled with the queen, who up 19. The prince de Condé had been condemned to death for his perceived part in the Amboise conspiracy, but François II died before he could be executed. Michiel notably adds the constable of France, Anne de Montmorency (1493–1567), as a major, if secret, player in the conspiracy. 20. Jacqueline de Longwy, duchesse de Montpensier (1520–61). This assessment recalls her role in reconciling the queen mother with the King of Navarre for the formation of the regency during the minority of Charles IX. See Catherine’s letter 15 in this volume.

118 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors until now did not simply dislike him but hated him ardently. It is said that this hate originated from the time of Henri II, not only because the constable was tied to the duchesse de Valentinois21 (who was so beloved of the king and so hated by the queen because the duchess so lowered and oppressed her), but because of some differences of opinion that he had with the queen; the constable had spoken of her disrespectfully, calling her “a merchant’s daughter,” which the queen found out. Michele Suriano, Ambassador in 156122 [On Salic law] (Vol. 1, 506) Women are excluded from the throne by Salic law, as it is called, or rather by a long-established custom that has the force of law.23 Therefore, the King of France is always a Frenchman and can never be from another nation. Thus, what tends to happen in other states can never happen here: when the throne is passed through the woman one never knows with certainty who will be king. Or often a king is crowned who comes from a despised enemy nation, as happened in Spain, which fell to the power of the Flemish, just as Naples and Sicily fell to the power of Spain. Consequently, there is no realm in the world toward which every other prince does not find some reason to lay claim; and they make these claims against other claims, which each seeks to support using war or the favor of factions. This divides the people of the realm and renders them prey either to one usurper or another. This is what has brought so many weapons and so many foreign customs to Italy. France does not have to fear such misfortunes: the exclusion of women prevents forever any pretension by a foreign prince. [On two great misfortunes that plague France] (Vol. 1, 540) I have addressed the religious disorders that have thrown the entire body of this kingdom into disorder and confusion. I will now speak of two other important misfortunes that have arisen at the same time. The first has to do with the head, that is the king, the other with the principal members, or those who have authority over the government. It is as if all the misfortunes that could beget the destruction of a kingdom have come together for the ruin of France. 21. Diane de Poitiers, Henri II’s mistress; he made her the duchesse de Valentinois in 1548. 22. The report is titled, “Commentary on the kingdom of France.” Tommaseo notes problems with the dating of the report (468), and suggests that the relazione was mostly likely produced between 1564 and 1568, after the embassy of Barbaro. 23. On Salic law, see our introduction.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 119 As for the first misfortune, everyone knows that a change of king always brings with it some alteration to the kingdom, because it is rare that the successor has exactly the same thinking as the predecessor. In France, we have seen that the son does not follow the style of the father, and does not like those advisors who served the father, from which is born public confusion and private discontent. As for the public, what has been done is undone, and what was begun is not finished; what was done in one way is then done in another way. As for particular individuals, some are exalted while others fall; some are rewarded, others persecuted; this one sees his hopes dashed, that one acquires new ones; and universally, the ambitious man expects to profit from his service; the fearful man seeks to secure his place; from such circumstances do sedition and tumult often arise. The less authority and courage that the new king has, the greater the confusion. What lack of prudence has caused for other kings has now occurred for Charles IX because he is like a poor, innocent lamb who has to depend on the discretion of those who govern him. It has always been considered a calamity to have a child as the reigning king (this is proved by the phrase Vae tibi terra cujus rex puer est! which is said by He who never lies).24 Add to the minority of the king the miserable state of a country full of troubles, ambitions, and factions, one that is oppressed by debt and poverty, exhausted by a long and very costly war, where one child has been heir to another, and where, because of the brevity of their father’s life, neither of them could be taught to follow his example in the way of governing. When he inherited the throne, François II was barely fifteen years old. Charles IX was only ten, and now he is eleven and a half years old. It is quite true that he is of handsome and noble spirit, and shows in his actions much gravitas and modesty. His words are gentle and kind, his countenance agreeable and joyful, and he lacks nothing that is worthy in a king. One could hope for much good from His Majesty, if he lives, and if he does not change, and if, in the meantime, his interests are not corrupted and ruined in such a way that he is forced to accommodate himself to the habits put in place by the negligence and malice of others. I said “if he lives and if he does not change,” because both one and the other are feared. For the first, it is the opinion of many people that Charles will not live long both because his constitution is delicate and weak and because he has not been nurtured with such a regimen as should be necessary. What heightens these suspicions is that the astrologer, Nostradamus, who for many years has always correctly predicted the calamities that have occurred in France (which has led many people to put great trust in him), has told the queen that she will see all her sons on the throne. She has already seen two of them on the throne, François and Charles. Alexander [Henri], duc d’Orléans, and Hercule [Francois], duc d’Anjou, remain; the first is ten years old, and the other seven. Thus, if their mother is to see all of them on the throne, it must be that the death of Charles will take place soon, which would cause the 24. “Woe to you, o land, whose king is a child!”: Ecclesiastes 10:16.

120 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors complete destruction of the kingdom. Since for some time the crown will pass from one child to the next (who until they are of age need others to govern for them), it will be too long before they have a king with supreme authority, who is feared by his subjects, respected by his neighbors, and esteemed by all. And who, by some noteworthy deed, would return grandeur and glory to this crown. [On the king’s minority and counselors] (Vol. 1, 544) In order to change the thinking of the young king, there was already an attempt to dispute the role of monsieur the admiral in the guidance of His Most Christian Majesty; he is chief among the heretics.25 But because the queen did not wish to consent to this, nothing came of it. Nevertheless, if ever the heretics took hold, there would be great danger lest the new teaching quickly change the mind of His Majesty. The king’s flaw,26 although quite harmful to the health of the kingdom, nevertheless should be excused, because it is not his fault. But it is not the same for the defects of those who actually govern, for their faults are voluntary and caused by their own interest. Before I speak of this, it is necessary to discuss briefly the customs of France, and to tell about the duration of the king’s minority and how the kingdom is governed during this time. As for the first point, it is determined through law that the king should remain under tutelage until he enters his fifteenth year. As for the second point, there have been three cases of minority in France since the descendants of Hugues Capet have reigned; the case of the present king is the fourth.27 The first case was that of Saint Louis who, either because there were no [male relatives of the blood] in France, or because it had thus been arranged by the king his father, remained under the tutelage of the queen mother until he was of legitimate age.28 The second case was that of Charles VI, who was under the tutelage of his uncles, the brothers

25. Gaspard de Coligny (1519–72), admiral of France, and supreme leader of the Huguenot forces after the death of the prince de Condé. His assassination by the Guises set off the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres following the wedding of Henri de Navarre and Marguerite de Valois in August 1572. See also note 35 below. 26. I.e. his youth, and therefore his mutability. 27. Suriano suggests that the king achieves his majority at age fifteen, which is older than what modern scholars have suggested (age thirteen or in his fourteenth year); see our introduction. It could be that Suriano was simply misinformed. Hugues Capet, founder of the Capetian dynasty, became King of West Francia in 987. The Capetians ruled France until 1328. Jim Bradbury, The Capetians: Kings of France, 937–1328 (New York: Continuum Books, 2007), 1. 28. Blanche of Castile, daughter of Alfonso VIII of Castile and Eleanor of England. She married Louis VIII of France in 1200 and ruled as regent for her son, Louis IX, from 1226 to 1235. Louis IX was canonized in 1297.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 121 of his father.29 Because there were three of them, the title of regent was given to the duc d’Anjou, who was the oldest; the administration of the government was given to the duc de Bourgogne, who was the youngest. Of the duc de Berry, who was the third brother, nothing is said. The third case was that of Charles VIII, in which, although there were male relatives of the blood, the government was put in the hands of twelve princes through the consent of the Estates. Even though, in all of these cases, different measures were taken, it is the general opinion, based on the opinion of very wise men, that the governing of the kingdom belongs, during a royal minority, to the princes of the blood, and more properly to the closest heirs of the throne, while authority over the person of the king belongs to the mother.30 As for the cases of Louis IX and Charles VIII, they were decided, it is said, by the last will and testament of their fathers, which must always be upheld. But the current queen, who did not have a testament of the deceased king, and who was uncomfortable remaining without authority, sought to interrupt that usual order of things. And, in order to earn the favor of the great nobles, she admitted to the government all the princes of the kingdom. She favored the liberation of the prince de Condé, she ingratiated herself with the constable, and she sought accord with both the King of Navarre and with the Guises. And although she kept for herself the primary position in the kingdom, she did so with the consent of all: thus all could have been at peace if everyone had been happy with his role without seeking to occupy that of others. But because man’s ambition is limitless, and because those who had attempted to remove power from the hands of the Guises were not satisfied unless the Guises were completely deprived of it, and because it was impossible to quell the Guises without compromising the authority of the queen, it was decided by the Estates that the government of the kingdom belonged to the first prince of the blood, and that it was not suitable to leave the government in the hands of a woman; there was much upheaval on this point. Because of this, the queen became cowardly and let herself be persuaded to put herself entirely in the hands of the King of Navarre; not only did she consent to name him the lieutenant general of the kingdom, but she promised to deliberate nothing nor do

29. Charles VI (1368–1422), who inherited the throne at the age of eleven. 30. The text appears to reference the distinction between the two forms and functions of regency: the guardianship and mentorship of the king (traditionally given over to the mother and known as tutelle), and the administration of state affairs, known as curatelle, which the text claims is conventionally assigned to the princes of the blood. Catherine sought to combine these roles in her function as regent. For a discussion of tutelle, curatelle, and the edict that conjoined these roles for Catherine, see Katherine Crawford, Perilous Performances: Gender and Regency in Early Modern France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), esp. 38–45. Tracy Adams also discusses this division in The Life and Afterlife of Isabeau of Bavaria (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), esp. Chapter 3, 73–112.

122 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors anything without his knowledge and approval.31 It seemed at first that this was simply a way to allow him to participate in her authority, but in fact she is more conscious every day of having ceded power to him entirely and to being subject to his discretion in all things. As such, the power of the King of Navarre has gradually excluded all others from governing. Already the duc de Guise has returned to his estates with his brothers, not because he could not stay at court (and in fact he is much respected for his authority as well as for his courage and his following), but because he saw that his staying there was a disgrace. He told a few (who then told me), that many things decided by the council in one way were executed and made public in an entirely different way by the authority of the King of Navarre; and that he wanted to leave so as not to appear to consent to such errors. The maréchal de Brissac and the maréchal de Saint-André have done the same; one left court because of his poor health, the other left because he was disliked by the King of Navarre. The cardinal de Tournon remains at court, but has no followers. The constable, who sees his star falling even though the Guises are no longer against him, and who believes that through the authority of the King of Navarre the kingdom will be ruined, is desperate and unhappy. This is how discord among the princes has put the health of this kingdom in great danger. But to come to the particular faults of those who have the principal role of the government, in other words the queen and the King of Navarre, I will speak first of the queen. It would be enough to say that she is a woman: but I would add that she is also a foreigner; and what is more, that she is Florentine, born into a family of private means and quite unequal to the greatness of the kingdom of France.32 For this reason she lacks the credibility and authority that she might have had if she had been born in this kingdom or of more illustrious blood. Nevertheless, one cannot deny that she is a woman of great merit and spirit;33 and if she had more experience in the affairs of state, and if she were a bit more assured than she is, she would be capable of doing great things. But in the time of Henri, her husband, she was kept low; and although after the succession of King François II it appeared that she had supreme power, this was in fact just an illusion, for the cardinal de Lorraine alone directed everything. Now Her Majesty needs good counselors: and since she is suspicious of everyone due to the religious dissensions and discord among the princes, she has no one she can trust. She has very great esteem for 31. This is quite different from Catherine’s public appraisal of the situation. See, for example, Catherine’s letter 12 in this volume. Writing to her daughter Elisabeth, who was queen consort to Philip II of Spain, Catherine claims that the King of Navarre does not dare to do anything without her approval. 32. Note that Suriano completely ignores Catherine’s French noble origins on her mother’s side. This is repeated by the polemical Discours merveilleux, and participates in a gap that panegyric texts like Brantôme’s and Renaud de Beaune’s funeral oration for the queen mother try to remedy. For selections from the funeral oration, see our Appendix. 33. The Italian “spirito” carries multiple connotations, including spirit, courage, boldness, and wit.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 123 the cardinal de Tournon, a man full of goodness and experience; but in religious matters she sees him as too attached to the pope. She has much confidence in the grand chancellor, a man of strong character and her former servant.34 It is perhaps he who, through his own example, persuaded her to put herself in the hands of the King of Navarre. For, he is a friend of fortune, and although he had been a creature of the house of Guise, he abandoned that house to attach himself to Navarre. The queen feels obliged to the admiral and to the cardinal de Châtillon, who were instrumental in making the Estates soften and consent to her taking part in the government; although many also believe that the current dissension in the kingdom is in fact their work.35 The queen has great respect for the duc de Guise, first because he deserves it, and second because she has witnessed the valor of this prince, and she gives him (he himself claims) account of all things in letters written in her own hand when he is absent from court; she seeks his advice in all things. Nevertheless, the duke believes that all of this is complete artifice intended to soften him because of the suspicion in which he was held after he left court. As for the queen’s intentions regarding religious affairs, different things are said. Some point to the great authority that the maréchal Strozzi held with her, and he claimed to have neither faith nor religion.36 We already know that some of the ladies who are in the queen’s closest confidence are suspected of being heretics or of engaging in licentious behavior. We also know that the chancellor, whom she greatly trusts, is the enemy of the pope and of the Roman Catholic Church; and therefore we have seen that the queen is not as active as she should be to support the interests of the Catholics. But although I do not know what Her Majesty has in her heart regarding religious affairs, I can affirm through quite certain signs I have seen that she does not like the current turmoil in the kingdom; and that if she has not shown herself as ardent in repressing it as one might have desired, this is only because she feared that, through the use of force, the kingdom would be torn apart by war. I also know that she has always listened to the advice that was given to her, notably by the seigneury of Venice, and that this counsel has been so constructive that the kingdom is not in a hopeless state; and I know that she tries to raise all her children in the Catholic faith and in Christian morals. She speaks 34. Michel de l’Hôpital (ca. 1505–73) was appointed chancellor of France in 1560. Known as a political moderate, L’Hôpital did not advocate for complete religious toleration, as he believed that multiple faiths would compromise the unity of the kingdom. In the interest of maintaining the state, however, he supported working with Protestants and did not promote the use of violence. For a political biography of the chancellor, see Seong-Hak Kim, Michel de l’Hôpital: The Vision of a Reformist Chancellor during the French Religious Wars (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1997). 35. The Châtillon brothers, Gaspard and Odet de Coligny, nephews of Anne de Montmorency. Odet de Coligny (1517–71), cardinal and archbishop of Toulouse, converted to Protestantism and fled to England. 36. The reference is to Piero Strozzi, maréchal de France (1500–58), son of Clarice de Medici, and therefore Catherine’s cousin.

124 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors openly of this with great passion. Thus I believe we should be more inclined to think well of Her Majesty than otherwise; and if her actions do not speak to her desires, the fault lies in that she has neither the authority nor the experience that she needs. And this is as much as I am able to say about the queen. (Vol. 1, 558) This is thus the current state of France: a very young king, without either experience or authority; a council full of discord; the supreme power in the hands of the queen, who is a woman and, although wise, is also timid and irresolute; and the King of Navarre, certainly a noble and courtly prince, but inconstant and not well practiced in governing; the people disordered and sharply divided, and the kingdom full of seditious and insolent persons who, under the pretext of religion, have disturbed the public peace, corrupted both customs and the usual way of life, ruined all discipline, stifled justice, violated the magistrates, and finally have put both the power of the king and the security of all in jeopardy. And whoever wants to compare the present state of the kingdom to that of times past (when France was once so formidable among the greatest powers of the world) will find it so feeble and infirm, that there is not a single part of it that is healthy. Marc’Antonio Barbaro, Ambassador, after Returning from His Legation in 1563 (Vol. 2, 40) The king is fourteen years old, his complexion and temperament are hot and dry; he likes, above all, weapons, horseback riding, and war.37 As for the attributes of his body, the king has a very good character, a light complexion, is rather tall for his age, and has a well proportioned body; he is slightly slender. His exercise consists of jousting, riding, sparring, hunting, and similar things; he likes to exercise hard and delights in any kind of handiwork, most notably painting and engraving. As for the attributes of his mind one can say first of all that he shows himself to be a good Catholic and pious, of good morals, an enemy of vice, magnanimous, agreeable, and generous. He is of quite keen intelligence. He studies the affairs of the world and languages, especially Latin and Italian. That is enough about the king. I will speak at this point of the queen, and the King of Navarre. The French queen, called Catherine de Médicis, is of the Florentine nation, and of most illustrious blood. She was the niece of Leo X and Clement VII, of blessed memory. In 1533 when the pope met François Ier in Marseille, she was given in marriage to Henri, second son of the said François, first the duc d’Orléans and then King of France, second of that name. The queen was sterile in her early years; but since that time she has had eight beautiful children: five boys and three 37. Charles IX.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 125 girls. The oldest of the sons was King François II who died, whose wife was Mary of Scotland; the second son died very young; the third, Charles, is the current king; the fourth, Alexandre, duc d’Orléans;38 and fifth is Hercule, called the duc d’Anjou.39 The oldest of the girls was Elisabeth, wife of the Catholic King; the second, Claude, wife of the duc de Lorraine; and the third, Marguerite, who is still a child. But to return to the queen: she is forty-five years old, of hot and humid temperament, inclined to peace, the hunt, and exercise. As regards her physique, she still appears young and pretty, with white skin and a very graceful face, and an attractive body; her manners are affable and gracious; as for her mind, I can certainly say that I have perceived in her a keen mind, one that is truly Florentine. She is very adroit and prudent, and Her Majesty shows great magnanimity of spirit. She is able and intelligent in negotiating. She has endured with constancy the misfortunes in the kingdom caused by the question of the Christian religion. She claims she wishes to follow and defend the Christian faith, to raise the king and her other children in this faith, according to the will of the kings who preceded them. As for knowing whether this goodwill has in fact manifested itself, I will speak of this further on. Through the deliberation of the three Estates, she was admitted to the government of the kingdom: and now she governs together with the King of Navarre, to whom she is united: and she likes to take charge of all negotiations, and to show that all turns on her authority, as much in the education of the princes (in which she takes great pleasure) as in other things. Antoine, the King of Navarre, from the house of Bourbon, who used to be called monsieur de Vendôme, is French, of royal blood (he descends from King Louis),40 and is forty-six years old. He is of sanguine and choleric temperament, and is very feeble. His principal interest is to pursue his carnal pleasures; his appearance is not overly agreeable, he is tall and thin and frequently ill. His marriage to the daughter of the King of Navarre made him king; but he does not possess the kingdom in its entirety, as the region on the other side Pyrenees is in the hands of the Spanish king. The domain that belongs to him brings in about 100,000 écus of revenue. The King of Navarre governs alongside the queen, and is the king’s lieutenant general. He is changeable, lacks prudence, and is rather simpleminded, although he pretends to possess a keen intelligence in matters of state, which he does not understand very well, it seems to me. The words he speaks and the image he projects makes it seem as if he wished to lead a Catholic life: but I will speak of what have been and what are his true sentiments in due course. As for the rest, he is an affable and benevolent lord, and quite humane and gentle. He seeks to act with restraint with all the princes. 38. The future Henri III. His name was changed to Henri in 1565. 39. Known later as François-Hercule, or simply François, duc d’Anjou et d’Alençon. 40. Louis IX, or Saint Louis (1214–70). See also note 28 above.

126 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors After Berengario, the heresy against the sacraments was renewed in France in 1534.41 In Paris at that time, books were found that denied the sacrament of the Eucharist. Libelous things on the subject were posted at the Hôtel de Ville, in several spots in Paris, and in different places in France. King François Ier, of blessed memory, who was greatly disturbed by these events, came to Paris with Queen Eléanor,42 with his children and several princes and barons. To appease God, he ordered a solemn procession, which he insisted on attending in person. Afterward he spoke with great feeling, exhorting the people to be rid of this heresy, and he ordered that the heretics who had been seized be burned alive. Would that it pleased God for the same remedy to be continued through the present time! We would never have seen so many contagious ills spread themselves throughout France, and Christendom would not find itself in such a deplorable state. But although François’s medicine was a good one, and very effective against the ills that had begun to emerge, it could not produce the desired effect because it was not applied with any constancy later on. It could not vanquish these ills, nor did it purge this body in such a way so that a graver illness would not have to be feared in the future. They tried another treatment with little effect, which consisted of the stringent edicts published by François and by Henri to prevent such a pestilence from infecting the entire kingdom. In spite of this, it continued to spread itself insidiously, growing in ways that I will recount to Your Serenity. [On the establishment of Catherine’s regency during the minority of Charles IX] (Vol. 2, 62) The queen found herself in one of the most difficult moments of her life: the three Estates did not want to include a woman in the government; they did much to try to exclude her. But eventually the favor and consent of the King of Navarre and the other princes of the blood overcame this obstacle. However, it was said that the house of Guise did not stop opposing it because they foresaw that the queen would ally herself with the King of Navarre. Afterward, on account of the king’s young age and to govern in his name, a council was instituted, which included, in addition to the queen mother and the King of Navarre who were the supreme chiefs, the princes of the blood, the cardinal de Lorraine, the duc de Guise, the constable, the chancellor, the cardinals de Tournon and de Châtillon, the admiral, the duc de Nevers, the maréchal de Saint-André, Morvilliers the bishop of

41. The eleventh-century theologian Berengar of Tours, archdeacon of Angers, disputed the doctrine of transubstantiation, although he eventually made peace with the Church before his death in 1088. 42. Eleanor of Austria, François Ier’s second wife. His first wife was Claude de France, daughter of Louis XII, and mother of the royal children.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 127 Orléans, the bishop of Valence, messieurs de Selve, d’Avançon and several other superintendants of finances.43 Shortly afterward, the Guises all left court. [On the queen’s religious inclinations] (Vol. 2, 82) The queen, whom the three Estates allowed to govern the kingdom of France, and who is the head of all the administration, has always demonstrated the intention of raising the king and her other children in the Christian religion,44 as the kings their ancestors had been. She has always said that she desires to purge the kingdom of this heresy, and finally to show herself to be a pious and Christian woman in every sort of way. The duc de Montpensier, prince of the royal blood, was Catholic as well, but he was not a man to speak openly and to contest the opinions of the King of Navarre. The prince de la Roche-sur-Yon, his brother, always leaned in the council toward the new faith. The admiral and his brother, the cardinal de Châtillon, have, in every instance, openly supported the [Reformist] sect, which they have supported and promoted cunningly at every opportunity. The constable, the cardinals de Lorraine, de Tournon, and d’Armagnac, the duc de Guise, the maréchal de Saint-André: all were in their heart true Catholics. They always defended the Christian religion with vigor and were always consistently and unanimously opposed to all that might trouble the peace of the kingdom. But very few among them found themselves regularly among those of the council: the Bourbons, and perhaps even the queen, worked to keep them at bay. The Guises left court, the cardinal d’Armagnac departed for Gascony, and the cardinal de Tournon died. But while he lived, he and the constable spoke freely and most frankly; they zealously and ardently defended our religion. They were not always able to stop or even curtail the impetuous desires of the other powerful men. Nevertheless, their authority led to much good. We would perhaps have seen many other condemnable acts, if these Catholic lords had not rigorously opposed them. I must add, however, that despite all the signs that I have discussed about the mindset of the queen, she sought, through her words, to make everyone believe the opposite; and she has always professed the desire to live a Christian life, attending mass and homilies, and sometimes taking communion. When speaking to the ambassadors and to myself, she has often told us that she was born Christian, and that she wished to live and die in her faith, and also to raise the king and her other children in this faith. She has added that she would soon disclose her real thoughts to all the princes, but that it was necessary, for the moment, to tolerate certain things 43. The constable, Anne de Montmorency; the chancellor, Michel de l’Hôpital; the admiral, Gaspard de Coligny. 44. In other words, according to the principles of the Roman Catholic Church.

128 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors because there was no better way; but that the king himself, once he came of age, would remedy many things throughout the kingdom. The King of Navarre used to speak in a similar way, although for quite a while he seemed at least outwardly to be of a different mind. But he has since changed (as I will describe to you shortly) and has outwardly given every indication to the contrary, revising his stance because of the difficulties that occurred since then. Giovanni Correro — Ambassador to France in 1569 (Vol. 2, 106) I found this kingdom thrust into the greatest confusion: because of the current religious dissensions (which have almost divided the kingdom into two factions and have engendered much hatred), no one is saved through alliances of friendship and blood, and everyone waits with attentive ears, full of suspicion, listening for which side was the one to strike. The Huguenots, the Catholics, the king and his subjects—everyone lives in fear; but to tell the truth, the king and the Catholics lived in greater fear than did the Huguenots. For the Huguenots, who have become audacious, even insolent, with little regard for the edicts of pacification or any other royal order, looked for any way they could to spread and strengthen their religion, preaching in diverse and prohibited places, even in the city of Paris proper. But, except for a very small number, the people of this city are so devout and so against the Huguenots that I can with every confidence say that in ten of the most important cities of Italy one would never encounter as much piety nor a similar aversion for the enemies of our faith as one does here in Paris. But dismissing this zeal, the Huguenots continued to claim the right to assemble in private homes, and instead of ringing church bells they used gunshots as a signal that it was time to meet. The Catholics, on the contrary, were kept low; and Her Most Serene Highness, terrified by the troubles that had already taken place, did not dare to take any action that would create the least suspicion among the Huguenots. In fact, she pretended not to see what the Huguenots were doing, tolerated them patiently, received them humanely, and favored them with seeming affection. Her Majesty believed (as she told me many times herself) she could appease and satisfy them with these tactics; and treating them in this way, she hoped with time to dissipate these inclinations, which she attributed more to ambition and a desire for vengeance than to religious feeling. She hoped also that the obedience of the people would grow with the age of the king, and thus suppress the ease with which seditious subjects seek to rebel against him. On this topic, Her Majesty told me one day that if she alone among all the queens of France had felt the sting of these misfortunes, she would think herself the most unfortunate lady in the world; but she consoled herself by remembering that, during the minority of kings, the nobles and grandees of the kingdom always

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 129 rise up to make trouble because of the state of the government, for they cannot tolerate being ruled by anyone other than their natural king. Continuing to speak, she added that she had read at Carcassonne, during her return to court from Bayonne, a handwritten chronicle that explained how the mother of King Saint Louis found herself a widow with a son who was not more than eleven years old; and immediately the nobles of the kingdom rose up to protest being governed by a woman, and especially a foreign woman.45 In order to succeed more easily in their plans, these nobles united with the Albigensian heretics who, like the Huguenots, did not want priests, monks, masses, images, churches, or any other similar thing.46 They called to their aid the King of Aragon, telling him that it was necessary to come to them immediately. It pleased God to give the victory to King Louis. Toulouse, which was the asylum of the rebels, was dismantled; and in the end, thanks to the queen’s steadfastness, peace was achieved, and many of the rebels’ demands were satisfied. But with time, following the advice of his mother, the king, now grown, punished the rebels, which they had deserved. Her Majesty, Queen Catherine, applies this particular approach to the current troubles. Seeing herself a foreign widow, without a confidant, with an eleven- going on twelve year-old child, the nobles rising up against her, but under the pretext of religion, supported by the Queen of England and the Germans: she had entered into war and had conquered, Orléans had been taken and dismantled like Toulouse; peace was made according to her advice, much to the Huguenots’ advantage. But she confessed as much, hoping with time to acquire what could not be obtained except with a horribly bloody war. On this I told her: “Madame, Your Majesty must feel greatly consoled; since the troubles of the present are like a mirror of the things that happened in the past, you can be quite sure that the end will occur in a similar way” (I meant the punishment of the rebels). She began to laugh heartily (as she does when she hears something that pleases her), and she answered: “I never want anyone to know that I read this chronicle, for they would say that I follow the example of this good lady and queen who was named Blanche, and was the daughter of the King of Castile.” These were the intentions, goals, and hopes of Her Majesty: she wished to restrain the Huguenots until the king was in a position and of an appropriate age to govern without depending on the will of others. But she was deceived: and she realized that her patience made them more insolent, her humanity made them more arrogant, her courtesy put them at ease, her favors 45. The argument notably slides from a resistance to anyone other than the “natural” king to a resistance to female rule. 46. The Albigensians, also known as Cathars, were a thirteenth-century Christian sect found principally in Languedoc. For a detailed discussion of the wars waged against the “chimera” of the Albigensian heresy by Pope Innocent III, see Mark Pegg, A Most Holy War: The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle for Christendom (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). On Catholic use of the Albigensians against the Protestants during the French Wars of Religion, see Luc Racaut, “The Polemical Use of the Albigensian Crusade during the French Wars of Religion,” French History 13, no. 3 (1999): 261–79.

130 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors greatly increased their reputation, such that not only was the devotion of those who had participated in the past troubles affirmed, but it provoked many, many others, who were confident of obtaining everything they desired from the court by means of their favor, to follow the rebels. The Huguenots, seeing themselves raised so high, and recognizing (as they were astute and wise men) that the king was growing up and that his indignation was growing with him (for often, since he was a young man and unable to dissimulate, he called them wicked men who did evil things) and that he was also influenced by the example of Flanders, feared that His Majesty, imitating the Duke of Alba, would start to heal the illness of his kingdom by attacking its principal limbs.47 This is why they decided to save their heads at the expense of the life of His Majesty and the entire house of Valois, by devising a conspiracy the likes of which one has never before seen. One finds in the world many plots against princes, kings, and emperors; one hears quite a bit about rebellions in cities and provinces: but that a kingdom as great as France, in a single day and, it seems, at a predetermined time, should descend into chaos everywhere; that the king, with his mother, his brothers, and sisters, should suddenly be assailed in the country and exposed to the manifest danger of losing both crown and life; such a thing has never been seen before. Believe me, Most Serene Prince and Excellent Lords, it would be impossible to depict through words alone the fear during the escape from Meaux, or the lack of resolution at Monceaux (for there was no safety in staying, but leaving was perilous as well), or the danger that they risked in returning to Paris, or finally the confusion that reigned for many days in that city.48 It is enough to make you understand that only a thousand horses were sufficient to lay siege to the greatest city in Europe, populated by three to four hundred thousand persons, during the time that the king and the court, including a great number of lords, were there. The breadth of this conspiracy, and the secrecy with which it was managed, is truly an astonishing thing; for we know that these sorts of enterprises have at least one clear weakness, that they are easily discovered because of the number and variety of persons who are necessarily involved. And this particular movement, of which thousands of men were aware, was conducted so quietly that there was not a single hint of it until it was ready almost to be undertaken.

47. This is a reference to the rigorous measures undertaken by Fernando Alvarez, Duke of Alba, as governor of the Netherlands during a series of Dutch revolts against Spanish rule between 1566 and 1573; see Pierre Chaunu, “Les Pays-Bas de l’Empire de Charles Quint et Philippe II,” Histoire, économie et société 12, no. 3 (1993): 403–18. 48. On the “Surprise de Meaux,” in which Protestants conspired to stage a coup and kidnap Catherine de Médicis and Charles IX in response to military measures that they believed were directed against the Huguenots, see Knecht, The French Wars of Religion, 1559–1598 (New York: Longman, 1996), 38–39.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 131 (Vol. 2, 154) I will now speak of Their Majesties, and will begin with the queen mother (as one would describe a plant beginning with the root). Her Majesty turned fiftyone years old on the twelfth of April; in spite of her age, one can see no sign in her either of old age or of ill health, for she is of strong and robust complexion, and walks so briskly that no one in court can keep up with her.49 The strenuous exercise that she takes gives her a great appetite; she eats a lot, and many different things without much thought, which, according to her doctors, is the cause of her frequent and painful ailments that bring her to death’s door. The queen shows the character of her ancestors; she likes to leave monuments to her name in public edifices, in libraries, and in museums. After beginning these projects, she then leaves them without finishing them and begins others. She shows herself to be a princess who is humane, courteous, and friendly toward all. She tries to let no one leave her presence discontent, at least through her words, with which she is most generous. She is assiduous in governing, which has been surprising to everyone, for not a thing happens, however small it may be, without her intervention. She neither eats nor drinks, and barely sleeps, without someone coming in to bother her. She runs here and there with the armies, doing everything that a man would do, without regard for her health or well-being. Nevertheless, she is loved by nobody, or if she is, it is only from fear. The Huguenots say that she deceived them with her pretty words and with her feigned friendliness, while at the same time she conspired to bring about their ruin with the King of Spain. On the contrary, the Catholics say that if the queen had not favored and aggrandized the Huguenots, they would not have gone as far as they did. Moreover, this is a time in France when each man thinks much of himself; each man demands fearlessly anything he can dream up, and if he does not get it right away he screams and attributes all the fault to the queen, claiming that because she is a foreign woman, even though she is ready to give away the entire country, she would never part with anything that belonged to her. All the resolutions of peace or war that did not satisfy the nation are blamed on the queen, as if she governed by her own authority in absolute terms without following the advice or counsel of others. I will not say that she is all-knowing or that she makes no mistakes. Occasionally she has too much faith in her own ideas: but I will say that I know of no prince, however wise and valiant he may be, who would not have lost the fight if he found himself in the middle of such a war, without the ability to discern friend from foe; obliged to follow the advice of those who were around him, and who he knew nevertheless had their own self-interests in mind and were hardly faithful. I repeat that I do not know any prince prudent enough not to have been undone by such obstacles, much less a foreign woman without confidants and afraid, who never 49. Correro got it wrong; Catherine’s birthday was actually April 13.

132 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors heard a single thing that was truthful. And as for me, Most Serene Prince, I have been amazed that she does not become confused and surrender to one of the two sides, which would have meant the total ruin of the kingdom. It is she who has preserved that small bit of royal majesty that still exists in that court: this is why I have always pitied rather than blamed her. I told her this once when we were on the subject; and thinking over the difficulties in which Her Majesty found herself, she confirmed my point of view and then reminded me of what I said many times. I know that she has been found more than once crying in her private chambers; but then she would regain control of herself, wipe her eyes, and show herself in public places with a calm and joyful air in order not to discourage those who judged the state of affairs based on the expression of her face. Afterward, taking up matters of state again, and not able to proceed as she would have liked, she bent partially to the will of one person, partially to the will of another, which is what has caused these botched proceedings that the whole world is discussing, much to her dishonor. It has always been difficult to judge the actions of princes, for one cannot truly know their designs and concerns. It is especially difficult at this time to speak of the government in France, not only for those who judge it from afar, but also for those who frequent the court, because the considerations of Her Majesty are innumerable, and she receives little obedience from her subjects. The ambition of the nobles has grown so much that everyone would like to lead, and no one wishes to follow: from this is born dissimulation, hate, blows and counterblows, which have an effect not only on the affairs of the moment but (given the character of the king) will no doubt resonate many years into the future. This is why certain decisions are taken but no reason can be given for them. I can only compare the state of this kingdom to that of a leg, an arm, or any other limb that has been infected, such that when the doctor, in closing up the wound, believes it to be healed, he yet sees new wounds that open up in other, diverse locations. Thus it goes in this kingdom. But to return to the queen, Her Majesty has, through her wise comportment, succeeded in clearing the minds of all these Frenchmen. There is no longer talk that she should retire from court and occupy herself with her private life; in fact, there is no one of any station who does not fear her and is not happy to serve her. If the troubles50 were to cease, such that she would no longer need the cooperation of certain people, I promise Your Serenity and Your Most Excellent Lords that she could lead this kingdom as if she were its natural mistress. This state of affairs will last, in my opinion, several years because the king’s character demands it. And, as everyone knows, one speaks outwardly of the king (for one can do no less), but all eyes turn toward the queen, as it is she who with a “yes” or a “no” can make people happy or unhappy.51 50. A reference to both religious tensions and outright civil war. 51. This is an astonishing contemporary assessment and testimony of Catherine’s power.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 133 The king has now passed his nineteenth year by as many months as have passed between the 16th of June until this day. His Majesty is tall but weak because his legs are rather spindly and out of proportion with the rest of his body. He walks a little hunched: judging by the pallor of his skin, one would not say he is very strong. Nevertheless, he is willing to work; and in physical exercise he does better on horseback than on his own feet; he takes great pleasure in hunting, especially for deer, which he does with extreme ardor. His Majesty is not very interested in affairs of state; nevertheless, he patiently listens and attends council for three or four hours at a time. As for decisions, he relies on his mother for whom he has great respect and reverence, so much so that I can affirm that no son was ever as obedient as he, and no mother in this respect as lucky. But it is true that such respect as he gives his mother (and one could even call it fear) lessens his reputation as much as it augments that of the Most Serene Queen. As for the rest, he is a courteous prince, humane and affable toward everyone; and I think that he will be easy to persuade. Giovanni Michiel — Venetian Ambassador to France in 157552 (Vol. 2, 242) This would be the place to speak at length of the queen mother, about whom truly there is much to say, and who directs all affairs herself alone in an absolute manner. Limiting myself to the most important facts, I will say only that it is principally she who is blamed for all that has happened. In the beginning, as a foreigner and of Italian blood, she was hardly loved; at present, to tell the truth, she is hated.53 Everyone recognizes that, in order to preserve supreme authority for herself in governing, even after the end of her son’s minority, she has fomented discord and divisions, exploiting sometimes one of the two factions, sometimes the other, whichever was more convenient for her interests. She has tried as much as possible to distance all her children from government affairs and serious occupations as they grew older, so that, having neither experience nor strength, they would always report to her (which is what they have done, and which is what the king still does at present); thus she gains more favor and more power. This queen has known for a long time that everyone blames her for all the troubles in the kingdom and that she is therefore hated; it is believed to be the queen who ultimately dissuaded the king from what he had wisely been counseled when he passed through Italy, that is, to enter into France in the same way that he left Poland, in other words without arms, and, as soon as he arrived, to proclaim a general pardon, release prisoners, and annul trials, since he was a new king and 52. This appears to be the same Giovanni Michiel who reported from France in 1561. 53. Note in this report the extreme emotion reported by Michiel—a distinct difference from the more conciliatory report of Correro.

134 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors thus wanted everything to start afresh.54 The queen mother advised him otherwise, that he must enter well armed and surrounded by troops, in order to be not only respected but feared, such that when he moved to release the prisoners and to pardon all, he would not appear to do so out of cowardice or fear but out of generosity and magnanimity. This would not have been bad advice had he followed it well, and it had been approved by the duc de Savoie, according to what he told me. But here is what went wrong with the king entering armed (for whatever reason): it was entirely ineffective, since the king had come from Turin to Lyon with troops so debilitated that they were hardly noted, much less feared. Thus the king entered into his kingdom neither entirely armed nor disarmed; such advice, as I say, was attributed to the queen and her counselors and, from that event, judged to be quite terrible. This was the cause of all successive misfortunes; the king has recognized this himself, and he was and is secretly very upset. But such is the authority of the queen over him that neither he nor others dare to contradict her. She has concern about neither the hate nor the accusations that she has garnered; she knows quite well that pamphlets not only are composed but also printed and published against her honor, which are sold publicly (one could say) in the bookshops.55 Nothing disconcerts her; but ever hardy and intrepid, she defies fatigue and danger, undertaking recently long and perilous voyages, tightening her grasp around the affairs of state as much as she can, to tell the truth, especially as she sees the state of the kingdom and of the king in a danger that was never more imminent or grave. If things continue in this way (and such is the opinion of those who best understand what the consequences of these present troubles will be), the result will be the piecemeal of the kingdom and multiple divisions; some will seize one part, others another. This is what is feared of Monsieur and the prince de Condé:56 this is what Damville has done, and those that took part in La Rochelle, and others who see themselves in effect, if not in name, more kings than the king himself.57

54. The king at this point is Henri III. Tommaseo notes that the Venetians had advised Henri III to follow a policy of moderation and tolerance, p. 243, n.a. 55. This is no doubt a reference to the Discours merveilleux. 56. As was conventional when writing of royal siblings, François, duc d’Alençon et d’Anjou, was referred to as “Monsieur” in contemporary accounts after Henri III ascended the throne. Henri d’Anjou (Henri III) was himself called “Monsieur” during the reign of Charles IX. 57. Henri de Montmorency-Damville (1534–1614), governor of Languedoc, who signed a peace with the Huguenots of the south; the truce later became the basis of a union between moderate Catholics and Huguenots. The town of La Rochelle was a Protestant stronghold. Charles IX declared war on La Rochelle in 1572 after Protestants refused to allow the governor, the Catholic maréchal de Biron, to enter the city. The duc d’Anjou (the future Henri III) was appointed to lead the royal army. However, after his election as King of Poland, Anjou left the assault and the siege ended, with Protestants retaining control of the city. See Mack P. Holt, The French Wars of Religion, 1562–1629 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 96–97.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 135 It weighs heavily on this queen that, since it has been predicted that the king will not only live a short life but have no children (which prediction one can hardly believe how much she is by her nature inclined to trust), the succession of Monsieur may very well come to pass (and she knows well that he does not love her, as he has always been ill treated, quite differently from the other brothers).58 Now the queen seeks in every way to reconcile Monsieur to both herself and the king with promises (as she is wont to give) of power and riches, including his own inheritance, which is very great, promising to annul her will and the donation that she gave to the king himself when he was simply Monsieur. This is what concerns and worries her more than anything else. So that she can best achieve her goal she uses all her usual shrewdness. As soon as she was with him, she immediately attempted to provoke discord between him and his followers, who already suspected that he might secretly conspire with her and the king to their disadvantage. What is more, as she knows the profound hate that Monsieur feels toward the chancellor and the duc de Nevers, toward the maréchal de Retz and Cheverny (the king’s favorite advisor), she has promised Monsieur (as I have written to you in my last report) that, as soon as she is in court and with the king, she intends to have him disgrace them and dismiss them from court, even though they were her own creatures and her favorites.59 All this she does craftily to reconcile with Monsieur and to win him over. Let me show the extent of her shrewdness to Your Serenity. Since the astrologers’ prognostications are also threatening a short life without posterity for Monseiur after he becomes king, and since the succession in this case would pass to her nephew, the King of Navarre, the queen uses her daughter,60 who is the wife of this king, to win him over, and she claims to have already succeeded. She has done much to win over his uncle, the cardinal de Bourbon, a most inoffensive man, whom she continuously brings along with her; she does the same with the duc de Montpensier, whom she has made her intimate confidant—he is a good prince, and considered quite kindly by soldiers and many others.61 Both of these 58. “Monsieur” refers to François d’Alençon, now also the duc d’Anjou. See note 56. 59. The reference is to several advisors in the inner circle of the queen mother and Henri III. The chancellor is Michel de l’Hôpital; Louis Gonzaga, duc de Nevers (1539–95), a hardline Catholic who nonetheless remained loyal to the crown, despite early ties to the Catholic League; Albert de Gondi, maréchal de Retz (1522–1602), the son of a Florentine banker in Lyon and a French mother who joined the court of Henri II in 1547; and Philippe Hurault de Cheverny (1528–99), chancellor of France (1583–89) under Henri III. 60. Marguerite de Valois. 61. Louis II de Bourbon, duc de Montpensier (1513–82), was a Catholic commander who led several battles against the Huguenots throughout the Wars of Religion. He continued to lead assaults around La Rochelle after the siege of the town failed in 1573; however, he was not able to recover the city. Both the duc and his wife, Jacqueline de Longwy, are discussed in Michiel’s first relazione above (and see note 20).

136 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors men are of royal blood and the closest relatives to the King of Navarre. Her goal is to remain in control with her usual authority, in case the succession passes on to her son-in-law. It is as if she believes she will never die, even though she is fifty-nine years old or will be soon; she is assured (so she says) that with the king at her side, she would lose nothing of her power and her reputation, even if the entire kingdom might be against her. This is everything that concerns the queen. Voyage of Girolamo Lippomano, Venetian Ambassador in France in 1577, by His secretary (Vol. 2, 626) Although she is quite old, the queen mother still has a quite youthful face: her face is practically unwrinkled and is round and full; her lower lip hangs as it does for all her children. She still wears her mourning garb, and she wears black veils that fall to her shoulders but do not come down past her forehead. When she goes out, she always dons a wool cap, which she places over the veils. The French did not initially wish to recognize her prudence and valor, in fact they affirmed the opposite; but now they consider her superhuman, for it is clear to all that it is she who does everything, and her prudence in keeping Monsieur and the King of Navarre prisoner while His Most Christian Majesty was returning from Poland could not have been more useful for the kingdom.62 During the latest wars it is firmly believed that she consistently intervened to mediate: she did so because— and this seems credible—it was the king’s desire. During the reigns of François II and Charles IX, people complained of her ambition and blamed her for the great misfortunes in France, because she feared being excluded not only from state business but also from the deliberations of the king’s council. And so she endeavored, by favoring and aligning herself first with one side, then with the other, that is, first with the house of Lorraine, then with the house of Bourbon, to fan the flames of personal feuds. She also saw, moreover, that the two kings wished to direct affairs themselves, even though they were young, and were rendering the tumults of France useful to her, as it was thus necessary for her to be involved. So it goes with the current king who, not wishing to deal with the turmoil of state affairs and handing them all over to his mother, does everything he can to appease everyone. The mind of this exalted princess is just as robust as her body. When dressing, eating, and one would even say when she is sleeping, she gives audience. She almost always appears happy and she listens to everyone. She protects the Italians who, without her help, would find themselves in a difficult position in France; and I really do not know what will happen to many of them after her death, especially those who are detested in Paris and in the rest of the kingdom. She is a 62. We see in this assessment Lippomano’s bias toward the queen mother.

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 137 generous woman, magnanimous and strong, and seems to wish to live for many more years; may this please God for the preservation of France and the good of all Christianity.63 Giovanni Mocenigo, Venetian Ambassador in France, 158964 (Written from San Dier) December 19, 1588 The Most Serene queen mother remains touched by a little fever and travailed by a great abundance of catarrh, which is causing fear of some other unknown ailment. Let it please the Lord our God to preserve her yet for the service of this kingdom. (From San Dier) December 30, 1588 The Most Serene queen mother has recovered from her fever; however, she is still afflicted by a very troublesome cough. As she is bothered by these present ailments she does not leave her bed, where she remains with little consolation. By your leave, etc. (From Vendôme) January 6, 1589 The night of the 4th of the present month, the Most Serene queen mother was overtaken by a great fever. She was visited the next morning by the doctors, who discovered an infection of pleurisy. As she also had a fit of apoplexy she passed to a better life on the morning of January 5th. She had confessed and taken Holy Communion and Extreme Unction, which she did so contritely and piously that everyone felt no less grief for such a great loss than consolation in the hope they have for her glory. Through her will she bequeathed about 200,000 scudi to various persons. To the Most Serene queen who currently reigns [Louise de 63. Lippomano’s portrait of Catherine is surprisingly brief given the instrumental role she still played for Henri III at the time of this relazione. 64. The following report is not a relazione (which would have been composed in narrative form after a given ambassador’s return to Venice), but rather a series of dispatches sent by Mocenigo while he was still in France to keep the Venetian Doge and Senate apprised of the declining health and death of the French queen mother. The style is thus markedly different from that of the relazioni. The text of these dispatches is found in Horatio F. Brown, ed., “The Death and Funeral of Catherine de’ Medici, as Described by the Venetian Ambassador in France,” English Historical Review 11, no. 44 (1896): 748–50.

138 Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors Lorraine] she gave her palace of Chenonceau. To Monsieur Charles, the Grand Prior [Charles de Valois] she gave property worth 17,000 scudi in income. To the princess of Lorraine she gave her house in Paris with half of the furnishings. She left all that remained to the Most Christian king. He, together with his wife the Most Serene queen, and the entire court, so bitterly mourned her death that it is clear in effect how much she was always universally loved and esteemed by all. I will go as soon as possible to Blois to do whatever office for Their Majesties the king and queen that I believe fitting for such an occasion, to demonstrate the grief that Your Serenity will surely feel for this. (From Vendôme) January 12, 1589 The body of the Most Serene queen mother was opened. It was found to be so strong and healthy at the advanced age of sixty-nine years and seven months that had divine goodness left her free from the pleurisy that killed her she would have lived for many more years. Her body was then closed and embalmed, draped in black and placed in a chamber, where the ladies and maidens in her service continuously watch over her, each for two hours at a time.65 A number of brothers from the order of Saint Francis are also present, who say their offices and other prayers. A splendid canopy is being prepared in another room hung with tapestries of silk and gold, below which her effigy, made in plaster, will be placed. This is to be kept in place until forty days have passed. During that time her table is regularly set every morning and evening, and food is brought in, which afterward is distributed to the poor following an ancient custom of these kings. As I have previously written to Your Serenity, she has bequeathed 200,000 scudi, although she was not able to give anything to many of her intimate servants because she died too quickly. She also left 300,000 in debt, which along with the requests will be paid within four years with the revenue from her holdings. Every day she is more deeply mourned, and especially by the virtuous, who know the good that, in this particular time, she was able to bring to this kingdom which has been so travailed, more than at any other time. I have asked for an audience before His Majesty the king, to whom, deputized as I am, I will go to make condolences, as I deem necessary for this occasion. (From Blois) 65. Cf. in this volume Brantôme, “Discours,” note 90 on her interment, as well as Etienne Pasquier’s description of Catherine’s embalming and burial in the letter concluding the Appendix: “It is true that because she was not well embalmed (for the city of Blois is not stocked with drugs and spices for this task) and the body started to smell bad a few days after the king’s departure, they were forced to bury her in the middle of the night, not in a vault, since there wasn’t one, but rather straight in the ground, just like the lowest man among us.”

Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors 139 February 6, 1589 The funeral rites for the late Most Serene queen mother took place over the last two days. Against the ancient custom of the kings of France, they were attended by His Majesty as well as by the queen, the ambassadors, and the entire court since the king wished to show, with this extraordinary display, what a great loss this was. His grief was very clearly shown, for he accompanied the funeral ceremony with endless tears, as did the queen and each person of the court, which is already sad and troubled because of the miserable condition of the present times. I made due condolences to His Majesty in the name of Your Serenity, expressing with the most effective words possible not only the sorrow that you had felt at the death of this Most Serene queen, may she glory in heaven, because of the great reverence and respect that Your Serenity felt for her, and at what His Majesty and this entire kingdom has lost in this exalted princess, but also the grief that you felt for the travails of His Majesty. I told him that nevertheless, in his exalted wisdom, he must bow before the will of God. The king answered my condolences with the most affectionate words, saying that truly he felt no small consolation from this demonstration that he received from Your Serenity as a sign of the love that you bear him; and he thanked you for it with much affection. I have since received from Your Serenity the letter of the 21st of the past month with your orders. I will follow them as soon as His Majesty leaves his bed, where he has lain these past two days, because of a passing indisposition.

Marvelous Discourse on the Life, Actions, and Deportment of Catherine de Médicis, Queen Mother (1576), Selections1 The Government of Catherine de Médicis, Queen of France2 [III] As it would be very useful if the lives of all persons raised in dignity who, in their time, have brought some notable fruit into the world were well and diligently recorded both to reward their work and to remain an example of virtue for posterity; so, I certainly think that it would be desirous for those who have taken pleasure or spent their time only in wrongdoing to be enshrouded in perpetual oblivion, both to punish them for their evil doings, unworthy of memory, and to prevent men—themselves too adept at evil—from having a patron of maliciousness after which they can fashion themselves. This is why I hesitated for a time to write this little bit about the life and actions of Catherine de Médicis, who calls herself the regent of our miserable kingdom of France, and makes her regency felt today (as she has for a long time): because this woman is a pure portrait and example of tyranny in her public bearing and of all sorts of vices in her private affairs. I fear soiling my hands in this somewhat, and making myself sick by stirring up and sampling such a vile and rank subject. But, in the end, considering that she is still alive, that she not only lives but governs under the appetite of the passions that control her, and that now under the pretext of a title audaciously usurped she acts as our regent and continues to whip and torture us cruelly without any of us pretending to feel it (as if through the wave of her wand and bewitching potions she had changed us into [IIII] wild beasts and torn out our humanity), I am obligated to put these scruples aside to put my hand to this task (albeit against my will) and show everyone who this woman is who holds us

1. Lead translator: Leah L. Chang. Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportemens de Catherine de Médicis, Roine Mère (1576). This translation refers to the French edition of the 1576 version prepared by Nicole Cazauran (Geneva: Droz, 1995), hereafter abbreviated as “DM.” Cazauran’s 1576 text is based on the exemplar housed at the Bibliothèque municipale de Troyes (FF 175916); see DM, 111–13. Folio numbers from the 1576 edition, also reproduced in the Cazauran edition, are given in square brackets. Cazauran’s excellent edition includes notes on many of the early modern and classical historical, literary, political, and theological sources that informed the Discours merveilleux, some of which we include below. See also the digitized facsimile of the 1575 version in the Gordon Collection, University of Virginia: http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/scholarlyresources/portfolio/gordon/religion/ discoursmerveilleux.html. 2. Section headers do not appear as such in the 1576 edition, but rather as marginal side notes; these side notes appear throughout the original text. Given their explanatory, if brief, nature, we have incorporated a few of these side notes as headers at the beginning of each section of text. Additional explanations of the sections have been included, when necessary, in brackets.

141

142 Marvelous Discourse under her paw and, in view of the past, what we should expect from her in the future, if we do not find a way to escape her clutches.3 Now I do not seek at all (God only knows) simply to malign her, and I endeavor to prevent her from persecuting us. I do not wish to insult her. It is enough for me to warn everybody of her impiety and the wrongs that she has done to this kingdom. It is not at all an appetite for vengeance that has made me enter into this discourse, and it would be poor vengeance indeed for all the wrongs that she has done to us. I desire only to warn of the final ruin that she has been plotting for some time against all the respectable people of this kingdom, whom she can accuse in her heart only of innocence, whom she can hate only for their virtue, and pursue to the death only because of the love they feel for the public good. I cannot ignore the truth of the following saying, Whosoever machinates harm or loss to others, For his own heart procures ruin.4 I also know well that if God and men left this woman in peace, she would not be any happier from it, because her life alone would be a sufficient executioner since (like herself) it is corrupt and filled with every wicked deed. But because not everyone sees this as clearly as I would like, I shall try to show it. And although it is up to God to work in this regard, I beseech Him to give all of us the eyes to see this woman clearly, the sense to recognize her for what she is, and the courage to deliver ourselves from her, while there still remains a little bit of life in this poor and wretched kingdom. We will begin, then, with the country and place of her birth, following the dictum of the Poet, that character is hidden in the terrain.5

3. Cazauran notes that the reference to wild beasts is an allusion to Circe, the sorceress who transformed Ulysses’s companions into swine. Circe was frequently used as a figure for the poisons or luxuries of the court, as well as the loss of reason, particularly in love. Huguenot polemicists made Circe one of the emblematic figures for Catherine. Jacques Pineaux notes the anagram cited in 1575 by Pierre de l’Estoile: “Catherine de Medicis Royne de France” becomes “Hayne et discord Circé d’enfer ameine.” See Pierre de l’Estoile, Registre-Journal du règne de Henri III, ed. Madeleine Lazard and Gilbert Schrenk (Geneva: Droz, 1992), vol. 1, 192. Cf. Pineaux in DM, p. 127, n. 4. 4. Cazauran notes that this is a direct citation from Plutarch’s Moralia I, translated by Jacques Amyot as the Oeuvres morales (Paris: Michel Vascosan, 1572), vol. 1: “Why divine justice sometimes defers the punishment of wrongdoings,” f. 261 G. Cf. DM, p. 129, n. 6. All other references to Plutarch refer to Amyot’s edition (hereafter cited as “Plutarch, Oeuvres morales”). 5. It is unclear to which “Poet” the text refers. Cazauran suspects it is a translation, but has been unable to identify a precise source. For her explanation, see DM, p. 129, n. 7.

Marvelous Discourse 143 Origins of Catherine de Médicis [V] Catherine de Médicis is Italian and Florentine. Among all nations, Italy takes the prize in finesse and subtlety: in Italy, Tuscany ranks first for these qualities, and in Tuscany the city of Florence. All the proverbs agree on this point. Now, when this knowledge of deceit happens to appear in someone who has no conscience, as is often seen in people from that country, I will leave you to imagine how much trouble one can expect. He who once said that happy is the city where one hears only the voice of one sergeant spoke well: but he would have spoken more wisely if he had added “in fullness and simplicity” in its place, for fullness alone should hold forth in human life, otherwise the most famous cities could only bring great defamation upon their citizens.6 Moreover, Catherine is from the house of Medici. This house, which was for a long time hidden in Florence among the dregs of the people, in the little streets, where, because of its smallness, no one knew about it, began to raise itself up by means of a coalman who acquired a bit of wealth. This same coalman had a son who was a doctor [medecin] who began to take the surname of his art. And, as we see today the tradespeople take as their mark and insignia one of their principal tools—the masons a hammer or a trowel, the tailors a scissors, and so forth—so this doctor took for his arms five pills in an uneven number, as doctors usually prescribe. This has been so well observed for some time that, even though some have changed the number of pills to distinguish among the branches of the family, nevertheless they have always remained in an uneven number. Moreover, this doctor, wishing to show posterity that through his art he had arrived at some renown, took the surname of “Medici” in the plural form (in the style of Italy) and the name has remained thus until today. On this point, read all the historians of Florence and you will not find a single mention of this house until the end: even though in writing about the factions in the city, and naming all [VI] the families, be they noble families or notable ones among the lower classes who were compelled to follow one or the other factions, there would have been plenty of opportunities to speak of the Medici. Boccaccio makes no mention of them in his catalogue of illustrious families. In fact, the first step up for this house was made by a certain man named Sylvester, who called himself the chief of the common people against the gentlemen.7 The house of Medici henceforth enriched itself through banking and usury, corrupted the people through gifts, and finally, using diverse sorts of corruption, made itself the mistress8 of 6. The phrase “fullness and simplicity” figures notably in Calvin’s vocabulary, and thus may be a mark of the author’s Protestantism. Cf. DM, p. 131, n. 10. 7. The author refers to Salvestro de Medici (ca. 1331–38) whose cousin, the banker Giovanni di Bicci de Medici (ca. 1360–1429), was the father of Cosimo de Medici, founder of the Medici dynasty. 8. “House” or maison is gendered female in French, hence the writer’s use of maîtresse. Nevertheless, the implicit and coincident gendering of the house of Medici as female, with the attendant descriptions

144 Marvelous Discourse the city, and in this mastery its principal goal was to uproot the most ancient and noble families: there is no Florentine who does not know this, nor historian who does not bear witness to it.9 In sum, then, through oblique and illegitimate means, this house seized hold of their tyrannical domination, in which it learned how to strengthen itself with time in such a way that the late Duke of Florence,10 who, in order to possess Florence peaceably, was contented in the beginning with twelve thousand ducats a year for his pension; but at the time of his death took twelve hundred thousand per year, through his subtle inventions favored by the citadels and foreign garrisons, so that he could walk more at ease as if with two feet on the belly of his fatherland. Thus, Catherine de Médicis comes from very low stock. If, according to the proverb, “the mastiff never cares for the greyhound,” then the French nobility should never expect from her anything but utter disgrace and destruction as long as she is allowed to govern in her position.11 As those who have known them their whole lives say, most Florentines care little for their conscience, want to seem religious and yet have no religious conviction, and (as Machiavelli, one of their foremost politicians, also advised his prince) make much of what the ambitious Ixion often had on his lips long ago: Seek the renown of a righteous man, But not the actions and good works. Do only that which you see [VII] Will reap for you some profit.12 Also, the Florentines love no one but themselves, envy and mortally hate all those who have anything more than them, be it in virtue, nobility, or any other good quality: but they especially hate those to whom they are obligated in any way, even if in appearance they ceremoniously feign affability to everyone. The Medici have in them the quintessence of all these lovely qualities, as their own historians note, either because they did not take care in what they were writing or because of the of its corruption, is noteworthy given the text’s focus on the queen mother, as it assimilates the figure and the family as the chief source of harm to France in this moment. 9. The French text uses the word “race,” which we have translated in this instance as “house” or “family” since connotations that are frequently associated with the modern word “race” may prove anachronistic. However, the text does appear focused on a distinct Medici lineage—coupled with distinct inherited traits—in a way that seeks to distinguish not only Italians, but specifically Florentines and the Medici, as possessing character traits distinctly different from those shared among “Frenchmen.” 10. Cosimo I de Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1519–74). 11. Our translation renders the English literally from the French “jamais mastin n’aima levrier.” An English equivalent of the adage would be, “The churl never cares for the gentleman.” 12. It is Plutarch who attributes these lines to Ixion: Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 11E. Cf. DM, p. 133, n. 18.

Marvelous Discourse 145 reverence they felt for the truth. But above all, the Medici are particularly marked by an immeasurable prodigality with other people’s money toward unworthy and despicable people, by a brutal coarseness, and especially by a profound ability to dissimulate which makes them capable of committing all sorts of betrayals. I do not wish to dig further into the foundation of this race: for the moment it will be enough for me to speak of the most illustrious family that has descended from them, of which the memory is quite fresh. Cosimo and Lorenzo de Medici were praised for their generosity toward the people: but this generosity sought to tyrannize, and this gentleness was only a net they threw to catch the fish and then devour them.13 This finesse cannot be called virtue, for virtuous actions have only virtue as their goal and lose this name of virtue the minute that they aim for other things. Now the people started bit by bit to perceive this false currency, but were too late to stop it: and the effect has shown to what purpose this shadow of virtue was inclined. But if you want to see clearly why these doctors [Medecins] wished to appear other than cruel impostors, you may look at the actions of Leo X and Clement VII, both popes, uncles of our queen mother, who were the honor of this race.14 I believe they should be chosen [VIII] above all others because they were raised to an exalted position where everyone can contemplate them more easily than if they were among a mob of people or within the factiousness of a city. Here is what these men were like, if you believe Guicciardino the Florentine, who was one of the principal men of their faction: and Paulo Giovio, bishop of Como, their affectionate servant, both of whom (if you can believe it), out of a sense of honor for the Apostolic seat and the love that they felt for these most holy fathers, spared them in their histories as much as possible.15 13. Cosimo de Medici, known also as Cosimo di Giovanni degli Medici and Cosimo the Elder (1389–1464), founder of the Medici dynasty. After increasing the political and economic power of the Medici family, he became de facto ruler of Florence. Lorenzo de Medici (1449–92), known also as Lorenzo the Magnificent, grandson of Cosimo, and great-grandfather of Catherine de Médicis. His rule is considered the apex of the Medici dynasty’s presence in Florence; cf. R.J. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici (New York: Addison Wesley, 1998), 4. 14. Pope Leo X (1475–1521), born Giovanni de Medici, one of Lorenzo de Medici’s six children. Leo gained definitive authority over the French church by supporting François Ier’s ambitions in Naples. Pope Clement VII (1478–1534), born Giulio de Medici, great-grandson of Cosimo de Medici, arranged the marriage of Catherine de Médicis to François’s second son, Henri, duc d’Orléans; cf. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 5–6, 10, 13–17. 15. Francesco Guicciardini (1483–1540), Florentine historian, supporter of the Medici, and close friend of Machiavelli. He is the author of the Storia d’Italia (composed 1537–40). Paolo Giovio (1483– 1552), pro-Medici papal secretary, was the biographer of Leo X. Cf. Paula Findlen, ed., The Italian Renaissance: The Essential Readings (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 34, and Natalie Tomas, The Medici Women: Gender and Power in Renaissance Florence (Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003), 108. Guicciardini and Giovio are both key sources for the DM. Giovio was bishop of Nocera de’Pagani. He was from the region of Como, but Pope Paul III denied him the bishopric there despite

146 Marvelous Discourse Before being made pope, Leo X, whom our queen mother resembles (some say) as much in the features of her face as in her temperaments, following their aphorism, One must seem to be a man of means, And yet be of no value,16 feigned so much piety and saintliness that everyone congratulated himself at his election as much for the sake of public peace as for the repose each hoped he would bring after the wars, tumults, and damages done by Julius II his predecessor, who had thrown Saint Peter’s keys into the Tiber and stolen the sword of Saint Paul.17 But as soon as he was installed in the papal seat, having climbed as high as he aspired, no one could recognize him and everyone perceived the deception, Having suddenly become other Than what he was held to be before.18 He sowed division between Christian princes and forged secret friendships with both the Emperor Charles and with the great King François, open and declared enemies of each other.19 He covertly promised each of them his favor and assistance at the same time to encourage them to fight each other. He ordered jubilees and celebrated processions. And meanwhile he plunged himself up to his neck in all sorts of luxuries and delights. He preached the crusades against the Turks in diverse kingdoms and countries, [IX] in order to raise money to enrich pimps, buffoons, flatterers, and people of similar professions. He promised paradise to Giovio’s efforts to acquire it. It is not entirely clear whether the DM, which calls him “Evesque de Come,” means to describe him as a bishop hailing from Como or, mistakenly, the bishop of Como, although the use of the capitalized “Evesque” suggests the latter. 16. Cazauran notes that these lines are merely the transposition into verse of a phrase that appeared in prose in the 1575 edition. The source is obscure; cf. DM, p. 135, n. 21. 17. Pope Julius II (1443–1513) preceded Leo X. Cazauran notes: “Polemical mockery against Pope Julius II and his temporal ambitions: he did not guard ‘the keys’ meaning the spiritual power given by Jesus to Saint Peter and for which the popes, his successors, are responsible in turn, and he armed himself with ‘the sword’ of Saint Paul, that is to say with the sword of the enemies of the Church, since Saint Paul, according to tradition, was decapitated. The formula plays on concrete objects evoking the iconographical traditions that the Reformers protested against and mocked.” DM, p. 300, n. 23. 18. Plutarch, Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 42F. 19. Charles V (1500–58), King of Spain and Habsburg Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, elected in 1519; François Ier of France (1494–1547). Charles and François were intermittently embroiled in what are now called the Italian Wars, a series of conflicts surrounding French claims in Italy between 1521 and 1559, which the French only renounced during the reign of François’s heir, Henri II, with the peace of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559).

Marvelous Discourse 147 the man who gave the most money, then used the sacred money for excessive expenses, immense gifts, and for the trifling pleasures of his sister Madeleine who received all the German deniers: which gave Luther (so says Guicciardino) occasion to cry out against purgatory and enter the lists against the popes. We know what happened next in Christendom. Leo thus seemed marvelously generous, but this was someone else’s leather, as we say, and was based on treasures amassed by Pope Julius his predecessor.20 Whatever wars he undertook, these are the goods and honors of the Church that he gave away only to his relatives, friends, and Tuscan and Florentine servants. This is the patrimony of Saint Peter that he dissipated. The papal taxes he augmented daily are deniers earned doubly from the expedition of benefices throughout all of Christendom, and he used them to enrich the small group of people with whom he made merry. However, he caused grumbling and divisiveness in the Church, which is still felt and will yet be felt for awhile. He impoverished the clergy for a long time. He engaged the ecclesiastical state in Italy in such a way that his successor will find, as the proverb says, that his pontificate shall continue on even after his death. In short, while building a handsome coliseum or enriching a decorative portal, he ruined the whole house. Let us come to Clement VII, also uncle of our Catherine. He was made a cardinal against the decrees of the Church, which exclude bastards from the College of Cardinals.21 Then he was made pope, buying the votes of the conclave with money and promises, having previously played up his persona fairly well. Now this is how even his servants, conquered by the force of the truth, depict him for us. He spoke at every turn to incite the Christian princes to join him in making war on the Turks, and in the meantime he sowed and fostered wars [X] among Christians, sometimes accosting now one prince, sometimes another, and sometimes both together to make them devour each other. His most frequent speeches in public were to ruin the heretics: and he himself was such a good Catholic that he had several philosophers, whom he gathered together from the surrounding country, dispute in Rome whether the human soul is immortal or not. From there he had no shame in pronouncing quite openly that he never had been able to believe that the soul was immortal. He should be condemned, in this regard, even by the pagans, who said several times that, It is a great impiety to believe That the soul is mortal or transitory,22

20. The saying comes from the Dutch proverb “the best straps are cut from someone else’s leather.” 21. Clement VII’s mother, Fioretta Gorini, was his father’s mistress; she and Giuliano de Medici were never formally married, although their son was ultimately declared legitimate through an ambiguity in canon law. 22. Plutarch, Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 265 F.

148 Marvelous Discourse as even their oracles had to admit. He spoke of making confederations with the Emperor, with the King of France, and other princes. But he thought it stupid to keep his word if there was no profit in it, whereupon he forgave the debt of perjurers, such that whenever he made a promise even with the intention of keeping it, no one could believe him any more. This appeared in all his negotiations with the princes of Christendom, and in the vengeance that he waged in Florence after he retook the city, killing off its most notable citizens against the explicit conditions of the surrender. This is how the historians describe his character: he took great pleasure (they say) in dissimulating and loved no one except those who had private dealings with him on secret matters. We understand well enough these words without calling them by their proper name. He advanced such men without shame, respect, nor any other regard, up to the highest honors, and enriched them without measure. But as for respectable people, those of merit and honor (take note of the true nature of his niece), he entertained them with pretty words, although he actually hated them in his heart, especially all those to whom he had some obligation, as a bad debtor hates his creditors. Such that he once said that he found more joy in that the Prince of Orange, who was besieging the city [XI] of Florence on the pope’s behalf, had been killed there, than he found in taking back the city, or even in becoming pope.23 He feared (he said) lest the prince ask him in return for the hand of his niece, Catherine, in marriage, of which the pope had given him some hope (in order to gain his service). But this was a jewel from which he sought even greater coups, always looking to deceive someone. And so he died, suspected in all his actions by all the Christian princes, odious to the Court of Rome, and so hated by each and everyone that Corte, his doctor, who was suspected of poisoning him, was not brought to punishment. There was not a single person who didn’t thank him in his heart for having rendered a singular service to all of Christendom and especially to the city of Rome in delivering her from this pope. In sum, it can be said of Clement what a French poet sang in his regrets about the successors to the papacy, namely that during his life, while he strove to embroil everyone, within his palace he Made of idleness his richest treasure, And under the infamous pride of three crowns of gold Hatched ambition, hate, and pretense.24

23. Philibert de Chalôn, Prince of Orange (1502–30). Clement VII in fact considered offering Catherine as a bride to the prince as recompense for his assault on Florence to restore Medici rule in the city. However, the Prince of Orange was killed before the marriage could be negotiated. 24. Sonnet 78, “Je ne te conterai de Bologne et Venise,” in Joachim du Bellay, Les Regrets. Les antiquités de Rome, ed. Samuel de Sacy (Paris: Gallimard, 1967; reprint, 1993), 120.

Marvelous Discourse 149 These were the paternal uncles of Catherine de Médicis. I say nothing other than what the most authoritative histories of our time attest. Those who knew them personally could say more. If you seek to know something of Lorenzo de Medici, her father, they will tell you that he was a man consumed by all types of villainy, adultery, and incest, a man blinded by ambition, and who was great only for having committed great evil.25 And moreover that the other Lorenzo, her cousin, feigning for an entire year an intimate friendship with Alexander de Medici, his closest relative, made himself a slave to the latter’s pleasures, became his spy against the Strozzi and all his other enemies, his pimp for all the women he desired, even in the most foul incest: then, [XII] having finally lured him into his house under the pretext of pleasing him with some lady, killed him with his own hand in his own bed.26 Now you see that the country, race, and actions of the closest relatives of our queen force us to anticipate terrible things from her. At the time that she was born it was said that the stars clearly threatened the place where she would live. Her parents, curious (as they would normally be) to know her destiny, assembled the most famous astrologers from the surrounding parts to foretell her future. Among others there was Basil the renowned mathematician, who had predicted to the last Duke of Florence that a great and excellent future awaited him, even though there had been no evidence of this whatsoever. The register containing the opinion of these astrologers can still be consulted. All agreed that she would be the cause, if she lived, of great calamities, and eventually the complete ruin of the house and place where she married. This surprised her parents so much that, having no inclination to cast her off and quickly extinguish this flame, More to be feared than the flame Of which the Trojan lady dreamt,27 they decided out of pity to raise her and, in order to nullify the astrological predictions, never to marry her off. Some time afterward, it came to be that Florence tried to free itself from the tyranny of the Medici, and was besieged in 1530 by the command of Pope Clement, who wanted to keep the Medici in power. This prediction about Catherine was not at all a secret: for Clarice de Medici, her aunt, the 25. Lorenzo di Piero de Medici, Duke of Urbino (1492–1519), father of Catherine de Médicis, and acknowledged by Leo X as the head of the Florentine Republic. 26. Although illegitimate, Alessandro de Medici (1510–37) was recognized as the son of Catherine’s father. Paolo Giovio’s Historiarum sui temporis libri, one of the DM’s primary sources, gives a detailed account of Alessandro’s murder by “Lorenzaccio” de Medici, a distant cousin; the French translation was published in Paris by Denis Sauvage (1570) and dedicated to Catherine de Médicis. The reference to the murder appears in Book 36, 351–53. Cf. DM, p. 135, n. 19; p. 141, n. 38. 27. The lines are again a transposition in verse from the 1575 prose. The source is unclear. For a fuller account of possible sources of the allusion, see DM, p. 141, n. 40.

150 Marvelous Discourse wife of Felipe Strozzi, avowed enemy of the Medici, whom she believed to be bastards, had heard all of it, as well as some others who did not trouble to conceal it.28 Those who heard it spoken of, never imagining that she would ever marry so well, thought [XIII] that she would be the cause of their city’s ruin, and this all the more since Clement kept asking first and foremost that his niece Catherine be returned to him. The council was assembled to discuss this. Some were of the opinion that she should be put into a basket and hung from the ramparts between two blocks of stone so that she might be caught in a cannonade: there was even a preacher or two who publicly exhorted the lords to get rid of her in this way. Others proposed putting her in a bordello when she came of age. Still others suggested that she be taken from the nuns who had charge of her and put in a cloistered convent so that she could never emerge again. All agreed that she should not be returned to her uncle. In the end, they followed what seemed to be the gentlest sentence, but was in effect the cruelest, which was to leave her in the hands of the nuns who were taking care of her, where she remained while the city surrendered. Clement had made much of Catherine to the Prince of Orange during the siege. As soon as he was rid of him, he presented her first to Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan, to favor the Emperor, then to someone else.29 Finally a desire for extreme vengeance plotted the unfortunate marriage that was to follow. King François Ier was not at all happy with the austere treatment that he had received while he was the Emperor’s prisoner, or about the treaties that were made before his release. Pope Clement was irritated that he had been kidnapped and ransomed during the sack of Rome, played (so he said) by the connivances of the Emperor, who had just recently (as the arbiter accepted among the parties) sold to the Duke of Ferrara the city of Modena, which Clement claimed for himself.30 Thus both of them wanted vengeance, but both were somewhat unsure about the means to do it; one had charge of the papal authority and the other the armies of France. Using the cardinal de Tournon and the cardinal de Grandmont as intermediaries, the king proposed to Clement the marriage of Henri, duc d’Orléans, who was at the time his second son, to Catherine, Clement’s niece. Clement [XIIII] desired this marriage so much that he could not believe it had been proposed in good faith. 28. Clarice de Medici (1493–1528), Catherine’s paternal aunt and an influential figure in Florentine politics, was married to Filippo Strozzi. Contrary to what the DM suggests, Clarice was one of the first to take the infant Catherine into her protection when she was orphaned. See Sheila ffolliott, “The Italian ‘Training’ of Catherine de Medici: Portraits as Dynastic Narrative,” The Court Historian 10 (2005), 40, as well as Tomas, Medici Women, 112. 29. Francesco II Sforza, Duke of Milan (1495–1535), had been a serious contender for Catherine’s hand in marriage, but Clement VII rejected the proposal for fear of binding himself too tightly to Charles V of Spain; cf. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 13; Ivan Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis (Paris: Fayard, 1979) 46. 30. Alfonso d’Este, Duke of Ferrara and Modena (1476–1534). Clement VII had also considered the duke’s son, Ercole d’Este, as a possible husband for Catherine; Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 12.

Marvelous Discourse 151 He disclosed this negotiation to the Emperor, in whom he feigned to trust thanks to the alliance confirmed by the marriage of his natural daughter to Alexander de Medici. The Emperor responded that if Clement made a show of moving forward with this affair, he would perceive clearly that it was only meant as a joke. But Clement pushed the affair so well that the contracts were sent, and soon afterward the bans were passed in which the marriage of Catherine was issued based on the vain and pernicious desire to possess the duchies of Urbino and Milan, which the pope would assist in recovering.31 In addition he meant to add the duchies of Parma, Plaisance, and Modena using other suspect means, through which enterprises we have nothing but ruin in France. Moreover, before the negotiations for this marriage, Clement had always diverted the king away from such enterprises. The Emperor was deceived in his opinion and began to wonder whether this marriage might bring him some trouble in Italy. Nevertheless he asked Clement about his promises, and warned him not to pay heed to all the assurances of the French. Clement responded that Christendom was completely fragmented not only because of the proliferation of Lutherans in all places but also because of the revolt of the King of England, and that to reunite it, it was absolutely necessary to renew his alliance with as great a king as François.32 But that the Emperor should not be troubled by this marriage, that Clement much preferred to be an arbiter of peace than an author or sponsor of war. As for the rest, he had given the French a woman who would cause confusion throughout their state. His words could well have been founded on the prediction of the astrologers: but I think that he also had in mind his own character and that of his lineage, which is what made him conceive such an opinion of his niece. Finally the marriage was consummated in the year 1535 at Marseille, where the pope and the king met with each other. And Clement was not reassured about the marriage until he had [XV] seen the couple put to bed together. These are the warnings from heaven, the predictions of the astrologers, the judgment of the pope her uncle about this marriage. Here she is, escaped from the convent, from the cannon, from the bordello, in order to marry up to the son of the King of France, who for his part could also predict, Enter our land, woman of bad repute, To ruin my sons and my renown.33

31. The implication is that Catherine was bartered to satisfy French ambitions in Italy. For sixteenthcentury discussions of French claims in Italy and François’s embroilment in the Italian Wars, see Francesco Guicciardini, The History of Italy, trans. and ed. Sidney Alexander (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), 350–70. 32. The King of England’s “revolt” alludes to Henry VIII’s break from the Catholic Church during his controversial divorce from Catherine of Aragon and marriage to Anne Boleyn. 33. Plutarch, Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 148 G.

152 Marvelous Discourse We must now look at how she has achieved what was predicted of her, and whether she has been even more degenerate than her forebears. I do not want to focus on her early years, nor investigate her secret pleasures. I will only say that in her most tender youth she always showed obvious signs of a very ambitious spirit, one that is subject entirely to her desires. Everyone knows the great rumors that circulate against her, that she had the dauphin François, the older brother of the duc d’Orléans her husband, poisoned.34 The enraged envy that she felt against him because he was so well loved by the king and honored by all the French nobility for his truly royal virtues; the jealousy that she knew to exist between the two brothers, the familiarity that she had with those who were suspected of committing this evil act, will make one imagine more than I can say about it. Then after, as monseigneur François, duc d’Enghien was gaining in reputation because of his prowess, we know how she secretly became his enemy, how she made King Henri her husband, who was dauphin at the time, think badly of him, such that Cornelio Bentivoglio sent him off to La Roche-Guyon.35 As she was at the point of being repudiated and sent back to Italy, as much because nature had Condemned her never to be able To ever have any children,36 as because of the appearance of her evil character, she won the trust of the grande sénéchale, who later became the duchesse de Valentinois, so that the latter might keep her in the good graces of [XVI] monsieur the dauphin her husband; she felt no shame in behaving like a procuress, to obtain her goal.37 Truly, these are ter34. François de Valois, duc de Bretagne (1518–36). The oldest son of François Ier and dauphin before Henri, he was held prisoner in Madrid with Henri in exchange for François Ier after the king’s capture at Pavia (1525) during the Italian War of 1524–25. His death in 1536 was blamed on the Emperor and on Henri and Catherine, although an autopsy had concluded that he died from natural causes. Ultimately his Italian secretary, Sebastiano de Montecuculli, who was with the dauphin when he initially fell ill, was tried for the crime and executed; cf. R.J. Knecht, Renaissance Warrior and Patron: The Reign of Francis I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 337–38. 35. François de Bourbon, duc d’Enghien (1519–46) was the brother of Antoine de Bourbon, King of Navarre, and Louis de Bourbon, prince de Condé. The author here appears to allude to his untimely death outside the château of La Roche-Guyon, where he was inadvertently killed by a piece of furniture that had been tossed out the window by an Italian soldier, Cornelio Bentivoglio. For a reference to this story in an older source, see Mlle Vauvilliers, Histoire de Jeanne d’Albret, Reine de Navarre, vol. 1 (Paris: Louis Janet, 1818), 72. The insinuation is part of how the pamphlet builds its case against the malfeasance of Italians across the Discours merveilleux. 36. Again, as in note 27 above, the verses are a rewriting in 1576 of a 1575 phrase in prose with no clear poetic referent. 37. Diane de Poitiers, widow of Louis de Brézé, the grand sénéchal of Normandy, and duchesse de Valentinois (1499–1566), became Henri II’s mistress in 1538 when he was nineteen and she was thirty-eight. The Venetian ambassador Marino Cavalli (whose report is included in this volume) states

Marvelous Discourse 153 rible acts, and great presages of the evil that she has since done to us. All the same, these are but roses and buttons (as they say) in comparison to the thorns with which she has pricked us in all parts, when she entered into the government. And I ask everyone to focus on this, following the saying of the ancients that it is in governing, more than in any other thing, that one perceives a person’s character.38 After the death of François Ier, and after she had become a mother using all the artifices that everyone has heard about, and since she saw herself no longer in danger of being sent back to her family in Italy, she tried to use any and all means to insert herself into government affairs. To get there, she courted monsieur the constable using her wiles first to get her foot in the door, then afterward her entire body.39 Now, however much monsieur the constable did not want to, he nevertheless sometimes said a few words to King Henri in order to satisfy the importunity of this woman. But every time the constable opened his mouth, he received cold and ambiguous answers: and there are many who know that one day, the king, annoyed that monsieur the constable spoke to him so often about her, responded with these very words, “You do not understand very well my wife’s character: she is the greatest meddler in the world.” He added that she would ruin everything if they let her get involved in governing. Impudence of Catherine. Catherine Governs with the King of Navarre [XIX] King François II died and Charles IX, of recent memory, succeeded [XX] him, between the age of eleven and twelve years. He was a prince of very good nature, had the queen not employed every means to corrupt him. She sought to govern during his minority: but she feared that the King of Navarre, the first prince of the blood who was of age, would seize the government which belonged to him

that their relationship was platonic, although Diane’s own letters reveal otherwise. Knecht suggests that Cavalli was “taken in by Diane’s propaganda”: Catherine de’ Medici, 30. For Diane’s letters, see Lettres inédites de Dianne de Poytiers, ed. Georges Guiffrey (Paris: J. Renouard,1866; electronic copy, University of Michigan Library). Remarkably, the DM suggests that Catherine orchestrated the affair between Henri and Diane for her own objectives, whereas popular opinion continues to hold that Diane and Catherine were bitter rivals. 38. DM, p. 147, n. 58: “A Greek proverb … states precisely that ‘power reveals the man’ and Plutarch, following the example of others, develops this idea, notably in Ad principem ineruditum … which was printed frequently during the sixteenth century, translated into Latin by Erasmus and translated several times into French.” 39. Anne de Montmorency (1493–1567), grand master, governor of Languedoc, marshal and constable of France, and a principal advisor to François Ier and Henri II. Montmorency fell out of favor under François Ier but returned to court after Henri II’s ascension; R.J. Knecht, The French Wars of Religion, 1559–1598 (New York: Longman, 1996), 15.

154 Marvelous Discourse by right without allowing her to share in it.40 She believed this all the more since she saw that he was on good terms with monsieur the constable and his nephews the Châtillons and other principal officers of the crown. She then won over the King of Navarre by showing herself amenable to the liberation and pardon of the prince de Condé his brother.41 She won over the Châtillons, the constable’s nephews, through the intervention of madame de Montpensier, who went along in good faith, thinking that in doing so she would advance the interests of the Protestant religion, which the Châtillons had started to follow a few years earlier.42 Monsieur the constable was won over through his nephews, whom he loved and in whom he placed great trust. Such that the King of Navarre, who was partial to that religious movement and partial to his friends’ counsel, who had an easygoing nature and who was perhaps more given to his personal pleasures than to acting for the public good, acquiesced easily to this point, namely that he and the queen would together manage the affairs of the kingdom using the counsel of the princes of the blood, the principal officers and counselors to the crown. That was already a lot, but it seemed nothing to her, for she wanted to rule alone, and the throne was too crowded for her ambition. Shortly afterward the assembly of the Estates that had begun under François II was reconvened.43 Here this woman knew so well how to play her part that she 40. Antoine de Bourbon, duc de Vendôme (1518–62), first prince of the blood, and jure uxoris King of Navarre after his marriage to Jeanne d’Albret, Queen of Navarre, daughter of Marguerite de Navarre and Henri d’Albret. As first prince of the blood, Navarre was made lieutenant general during the minority of Charles IX. Cf. our introduction. 41. The reference is to the Amboise conspiracy (1560), known also as the Tumult of Amboise, a failed Protestant plot to kidnap François II and overthrow the Guises, in which Condé was seen to be one of the principal instigators. 42. The Châtillon brothers, nephews of Anne de Montmorency. Gaspard II de Coligny (1519–72), Admiral of France, and supreme leader of the Huguenot forces after the death of Louis, prince de Condé; his assassination by the Guises set off the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres following the wedding of Henri de Navarre and Marguerite de Valois in August 1572. Odet de Coligny (1517–71), cardinal and archbishop of Toulouse, converted to Protestantism and fled to England. François d’Andelot (1521–69), colonel-general during the first two French civil wars. See Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 36, 60, 126, 129, 155, 159, and Knecht, The French Civil Wars, 1562–1598 (Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 2000), 87, 136. Madame de Montpensier: Jacqueline de Longwy, comtesse de Bar-sur-Seine, duchesse de Montpensier, dauphine d’Auvergne (1520–61), noblewoman of Catherine’s court and Huguenot supporter; J.H.M. Salmon, Society in Crisis: France in the Sixteenth Century (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975), 129. 43. The Estates General at Orléans (1560) granted regency powers to Catherine de Médicis despite contrary arguments that the regency should be given to the princes of the blood. Nancy L. Roelker, One King, One Faith: The Parlement of Paris and Religious Reformations of the Sixteenth Century (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996), 249; Katherine Crawford, Perilous Performances: Gender and Regency in Early Modern France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 43.

Marvelous Discourse 155 achieved her goal, even though the Estates of the provinces would have handed the government over to the King of Navarre. But here was her ruse. The King of Navarre secretly favored the Huguenots, whose numbers seemed at the time quite great, even more so than they actually were in truth, because of the fuss that everyone was making over them in all the towns, and because of the [XXI] noblemen who were joining them with each passing day. Now she undertook to favor them in secret, such that they turned to her rather than to the King of Navarre as the one in whom they would find the most support. In this case there is only the question of her practicing the teaching of Pindar, Let your supple and malleable mind Be similar to the octopus Who always goes changing colors, In order to deceive all.44 She openly showed that she did not disapprove of their doctrine at all, and had several of them who have long been held to be Lutherans preach before her, such as the bishops of Valence, Bouteillier, and others, which scandalized many Catholics. But moreover, she secretly communicated with their most public leaders, read their admonitions and pamphlets, received their requests readily, promised every advancement for their affairs, recommended herself to their churches and consistories, had funds delivered to them to pay the way of ministers arriving from all regions for the colloquy at Poissy: she even let them believe that she wished to instruct the king her son and milords her other sons in their religion.45 She called for and listened quite particularly to Peter Martyr the Florentine, one of the most learned among the Lutherans, on the points of religion on which the two factions differ.46 I leave it to every good Catholic to judge what kind of act this was, given that the Huguenots have always been condemned by previous kings, and have never obtained an edict by which they would be permitted to follow their religion freely. Through these wiles she gained the trust of the prince de Condé, the three Châtillon brothers, and all those who desired changes to religion: such that, according to them, she did more for them than did the King of Navarre: and in their affairs they turned more willingly [XXII] to her than to him. Nevertheless, she never stopped putting on a good show for everyone, and said behind their backs 44. Plutarch, Oeuvres morales, vol. 2, f. 537 H. 45. Organized by the queen mother and chancellor Michel de l’Hôpital in 1560, the religious conference at Poissy brought together Protestant ministers and Catholic clergy in the hopes of arriving at theological agreement between the two factions. The colloquy disbanded inconclusively one month after its opening with no reconciliation between the two sides. Roelker, One King, One Faith, 257. 46. Peter Vermigli, also known as Peter Martyr (1499–1562), Italian Calvinist pastor of renowned learning in attendance at Poissy.

156 Marvelous Discourse to the Catholics that she did this only to avoid division. Thus it turned out that she did not care which religion was ruined or established, as long as she got what she wanted, which was to govern. To achieve her goal sooner, and knowing the temperance of the King of Navarre, she carefully entertained him with the pleasures of the court. He was courting the demoiselle du Rouet, one of the queen’s ladies.47 She ordered this lady to nurture his love, and to comply in every way that she could with his needs, such that, forgetting the affairs of state, he would disappoint everyone: and in fact by this strategy she succeeded in making him do this. In sum, she insinuated herself so subtly that, notwithstanding the opposition of some of the deputies of the Estates, founded on the authority of our Salic law, and the terrible outcomes of female governments in this kingdom in the past, the King of Navarre agreed out of nonchalance. And as the deputies felt less troubled because of his apparent lack of concern, the government was given over to the queen, as the person who would procure the good of the king her son, and consequently of the kingdom, as a true mother should. Admiral de Châtillon and the seigneur du Mortier brought word of this to the Estates, for which they were compensated (like all those who have ever done any service for the Medici), the first one with death, and the second with hate. This is how she favored the Huguenots for her own particular advantage, and through her favors let them multiply in this kingdom, emboldened them to preach publicly and leave their cellars to show themselves in the towns: not because she held their religion in higher regard than other faiths, as it has seemed since that period of time, but rather to weaken the Huguenots’ loyalty toward the King of Navarre her competitor. As a matter of fact, she was in part responsible for giving the Huguenots the Edict of January, which allowed them the freedom to practice their religion in the outskirts of all the towns of this kingdom.48 They have held onto this foundation ever since to justify themselves in all the civil wars. Even after the edict was issued, when the Huguenots of Rouen retreated from the town where they had assembled to gather and worship in the outskirts so they could be obedient to the law, she made a great show of finding this badly done, saying that they should have to be begged to do so, and that appearances of such great obedience would bring them great prejudice in the future.

47. Louise de la Béraudière de Rouhet. Her son with Antoine de Navarre, Charles III de Bourbon, became archbishop of Rouen. 48. The Edict of Saint-Germain, also known as the Edict of January (for the meeting of January 1562 among moderate members of the sovereign courts to determine the articles) was registered in March 1562. It allowed Huguenots to worship in the countryside, but not within walled towns and not at night. Nicola Sutherland summarizes the terms of the edict in The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980), 354–56.

Marvelous Discourse 157 The Majority of the King and to What End [XXX] Under this peace treaty [ending the first War of Religion], the Huguenots were allowed to practice their religion, although not as freely as under the Edict of January. Also, their use of arms was avowed and justified, and their foreign mercenaries paid with French deniers. The English wanted to keep Havre-de-Grâce: but it was retaken by an army raised for this very purpose, made up of Catholics and Huguenots. The prince de Condé was there in person, and every man showed the enemy his desire to serve the king. Upon their return, the queen had the king, who was about fourteen or fifteen years old, declare his majority, even though some believed that it was too early to do so, and went against precedent.49 Now it is easy to see her intentions in doing this. The prince de Condé had previously let it be known that he desired to insert himself in the governing of affairs, and she had given him the idea of involving the cardinal de Bourbon, his older brother, saying that even though he was a man of the church it was no less his responsibility to govern. So, to keep him from speaking of this arrangement, and to prevent the other lords from opposing her pernicious designs and all others from demanding that the Estates be convened—following what had previously been required, namely that they assemble every two years during the minority of the king—she had his majority declared [XXXI] so that in this way she could govern alone in the name of the king, whom she made to say and do all that seemed good to her. This became clear as early as the next day by the imperious propositions that she made the king put forth to the principal men of the government, notably to the deputies of the Parliament of Paris. Just as it was for our former kings, openly in their majority, who never believed their own authority better established than through the authority of their principal officers, whether through arms or through justice. From that point forward she also began to diminish the authority of the privy council of our kings, where the great affairs of our state were bantered about, and to hold private counsel with two or three people of little standing, whom she loved (as did her uncle Clement) for her secret business, notably with Gondi, seigneur de Peron.50 He had only recently been a clerk of the commisariat of Vivres. Then having earned some credit through his mother, who was well known in Lyon and in other places, became a gentleman overnight, and then the standard bearer of a company of soldiers. Since he was not a man of the sword, being more fit to serve 49. Jean Jacquart notes in the DM, p. 169, n. 91: “In actuality, an ordinance of 1374 set the age of majority at 14 years.” Katherine Crawford also notes that the king could officially enter his majority on his thirteenth birthday, in other words when he entered his fourteenth year. Crawford, Perilous Performances, 1. 50. Albert de Gondi (1522–1602), seigneur du Perron, comte de Belle-Isle, comte de Retz, and maréchal de France. Gondi, who was Florentine, and initially came to the French court during the reign of Henri II, was one of Catherine’s chief advisors, and received much of the blame by Huguenots for instigating the St. Barthlomew’s Day massacres.

158 Marvelous Discourse in chambers, he was called back to court, and in order to keep him closer to the queen his mistress, he was made Master of the King’s Wardrobe, then the Count of Retz, and now Marshal of France. The king, however, did not in his majority understand matters of state any better than he had in his minority, and resembled a mute person or a farce, who serves only to walk about on a stage, or who says out loud only what is whispered into his ear: she did not want him to know any more than that. As soon as man is in his first youth One must show him knowledge of the good.51 On the contrary, in his most tender youth she let him leave his tutors to play with his toys, and (in a sinister presage) play at cockfights. When his majority was declared, instead of painting this royal youth with every virtue, she tried to corrupt her own son, and efface all of his good character. She allowed [XXXII] him to be approached by masters of oaths and blasphemies, mockers of all religion. She had him solicited by pimps, whom she placed like sentinels around him: she lost all sense of shame to the point of serving as his bawd, as she did before with the King of Navarre and with the prince de Condé, in order to make him forget any desire to learn about matters of state, and intoxicating him with all sorts of voluptuous pleasures. Everyone knows what I say is true, so much so that I am horrified to speak of it further. Thus, the king did not come to council except through the importunity of a few men, who to their great regret saw him thus badly nourished. Similarly, to give the prince de Condé a bad reputation among his followers, she entertained him continuously at the expense of the honor of mademoiselle Limeuil, who became pregnant.52 And when the queen, to put a good face on it, wanted to scold her for it, Limeuil had the audacity to say to her that in this she had followed the example of her mistress and fulfilled her command. Practically singlehandedly monsieur the constable spoiled some of her plans, for having governed for such a long time, he could not bear it that she did everything without him; nor could he condescend to do all that she wished. This gnawed on her natural ambition: but nothing tormented her as much as to see his nephews the seigneurs de Châtillon in good standing with him, no matter what difference of opinion he had from their own: and everywhere in France, Catholic as well as Huguenot gentlemen and even the common people were joining together in peace, and were forgetting from one day to the next the hostilities and grudges of civil war. At this point she feared that through this accord the leaders would use the nobility to oppose her command of the government; and that the common people, supported by the nobles, would oppose the increase in tithes 51. Plutarch, Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 2F. 52. Isabelle de Limeuil.

Marvelous Discourse 159 and taxes that she imposed on a daily basis to provide for her immense gifts and excessive expenses, contrary to what had been promised to the [XXXIII] Estates. And that all of them together would oppose the designs of a certain champion of Italy who controlled her and who was on the point of becoming the sole governor of the king and kingdom thanks to her. And in fact, rumors were already circulating about this. Now, since the abovementioned things could not happen without our complete reconciliation, and our reconciliation could not take place without a few years of peace in order for us to get used to each other’s moods, she decided to trouble the peace that was reuniting us from day to day, and thus to reawaken the religious quarrels, which were half quenched. She thus made the king undertake his nice little progress to Bayonne, on which she spent lavishly, under the guise of showing him his kingdom, but in effect to stir up the most partisan in the cities and in all the provinces, sometimes through gifts, other times through caresses, and at still other moments through religious discourse, to seek the extermination of the Huguenots. Ronsard does not belie this counsel, and even declares it openly in an elegy that he wrote for her when she was well into this voyage.53 While asking what kept her so far from Touraine, he suddenly responds: It is the desire to consume the flame That remains of the civil furor, And clean your provinces of error. Then he adds, Let your wish be done in good time.54 He shows through this that her entire plan was only to clean France of the Huguenots, whom she considered heretics, since they prevented to a certain degree the course of her ambition. During this progress to Bayonne she ennobled and knighted an infinite number of men for the purpose mentioned above. One of her greatest efforts was to consult with the Duke of Alba on ways to trouble this 53. Pierre de Ronsard (1524–85), court poet under Charles IX, and considered the most renowned poet of the French Renaissance. Ronsard was a staunch supporter of Catherine de Médicis, and his poetry—in contrast to the implications in the text above—often praised her peacemaking efforts, notably in the “Discours des misères de ce temps,” dedicated to the queen. Cf. our introduction. See also the entry on Ronsard and his works in Dictionnaire des lettres françaises: Le XVIe siècle, ed. Michel Simonin (Paris: Fayard, 2001), 1028–46. 54. The verse is taken directly from Ronsard, “Elegie à sa Majesté de la Royne ma maitresse,” in Elegies, mascarades et bergeries (Paris: G. Buon, 1565), lines 58–61. Cazauran notes that the DM twists the sense of the original lines, which invoke Catherine’s attempts to pacify the two sides. Cf. DM, p. 173, n. 96.

160 Marvelous Discourse kingdom.55 I will let each reader judge whether that old archenemy of the French spared himself in making pretty overtures to her in order to ruin us. [The following section details the events leading up to the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in Paris56] The Admiral at Court. On the Marriage of Madame. Cardinal Alexandrin at Court [XLIX] The marriage of Madame the sister of the king [Marguerite de Valois] to the prince de Navarre [Henri of Navarre, the future Henri IV], in which the Huguenots placed great hope, was also going forward.57 The king and his mother feigned having the greatest desire in the world for this marriage to take place, saying that they wished in this way to marry the Catholics to the Huguenots. To eliminate any difficulty, they even easily agreed that they would not be married according to the ordinary style of the Roman Catholic Church.58 Nothing remained to do but for the Queen of Navarre to come to court to [L] give her consent, and the prince her son to come for the wedding.59 The Queen of Navarre, after some delay, arrived there, and soon thereafter the marriage treaty was concluded. Shortly before her arrival, Cardinal Alexandrin, the nephew of the late Pope Pius V, came hastily to court to break off the marriage, and brought with him the plan to wage war in Flanders, and even to push the king again into war against the Huguenots; this is why he had been sent. In order to fool the Huguenots, they gave all appearances of paying little credit to both him and his proposals, but he 55. Fernando Alvarez de Toledo y Pimentel, Grand Duke of Alba (1507–82), chief advisor to Philip II of Spain, and his viceroy in Naples, Milan, the Netherlands, and Portugal. 56. The explanation in brackets is our addition. The author treats primarily the massacre in Paris, rather than the massacres as they spread in the provinces. An excellent source for extracts of firsthand accounts of the massacre, translated into English, may be found in Barbara Diefendorf, The Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre: A Brief History with Documents (New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2009). 57. The “first hope” of the Huguenots, according to the text, was the marriage between the duc d’Anjou and Elizabeth I of England. See Catherine’s letter 30 in this collection, which refers to the proposed marriage. 58. Cazauran notes that the ceremony is described in the Latin and French versions of De Furoribus gallicis, XXV–XXVI (Discours simple, X): the cardinal “by the king’s commandment uttered certain words that he had been advised to include so that neither those of the religion nor anyone else would have occasion to object”; DM, p. 197, n. 139. 59. The consent of the Protestant Jeanne d’Albret, Queen of Navarre and Henri’s mother, was long in coming; it took several years and bitter negotiations for her to agree to the marriage, quite begrudgingly, in April of 1572. Nancy L. Roelker, Queen of Navarre: Jeanne d’Albret, 1528–1572 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 346–83.

Marvelous Discourse 161 was secretly assured that all the faces he saw had no other vision than the ruin of the Huguenots … . [LII] In the meantime, it remained only for the prince de Navarre to come to celebrate the wedding. The king feigned impatience, swearing that his poor sister had to wait too long, and often had on his lips the idea that he wanted to marry his sister to the Huguenots, alleging in substance what Homer had Juno say in this passage: I will finish your querulous debates In a bed, through nuptial pleasures.60 And while the majority were waiting for the Dutch dancing the queen on the other hand was preparing to trap the Huguenots. But one deed seemed necessary to her before this coup. She mortally hated the Queen of Navarre, having recognized for a long time her intelligence and her courage. If she had let her live after having massacred the others, she feared that the Queen of Navarre would give her much trouble afterward. If she had her killed during the massacre she was plotting, under cover of the Guise lords’ old quarrel against the house of Châtillon, she could find no motivation that was convincing enough to place the blame for it on the house of Guise. (For what quarrel did they have with the Queen of Navarre?) Also, she had no hope of bringing the prince de Navarre, her nephew, in line, as long as his mother was alive, and she feared (perhaps), since this lady was wise and defiant, that she would find out about the ambush and thwart it. However, the queen turned to Master René, her hired poisoner, who, by selling fragrances and perfumed collars to the Queen of Navarre, found a way to poison her so that she died a few days later, after which he dared to brag about it, to the point of saying that he had everything ready to deal with two or three others who were unsuspecting. There was one more problem, for the pope had stubbornly refused to permit the dispensation to marry the betrothed couple against the common practice of the Church, and the cardinal de Bourbon, fearing excommunication, would not agree to marry them without the dispensation.61 [LIII] And so (see what sort of conscience she has?) Catherine pretended to receive letters from monsieur the cardinal de Lorraine saying that the dispensation had been granted but not yet dispatched, and that nevertheless the marriage could be celebrated if they wished. And so she showed her false and counterfeit letters to monsieur the cardinal de Bourbon who, based on that, consented to marry them according to the style 60. Plutarch, Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 148 F. 61. On the haste to perform the marriage without the pope’s dispensation, see Catherine’s letter 21 in this volume.

162 Marvelous Discourse of ceremony agreed upon with the Huguenots, and the wedding was celebrated Monday, the 17th day of August 1572. The following Friday, the admiral [Coligny] was wounded by a harquebus shot from Maurevel, who had previously killed Mouy, his captain.62 The queen mother, the king, and messieurs his brothers all visited him. She, above all others, claimed to be outraged at the authors of this coup, and decried it louder than any one else. But whatever pretense she showed the admiral, She would have eagerly eaten his entrails Voraciously, without releasing her bite.63 This she showed by an act as tragic and wretched as any other wicked act ever committed: the night between Saturday and the following Sunday she had the admiral cruelly murdered with all those that could be caught, whose names had been recorded on a list, so that they could kill them all. The first ones on this list after the admiral were the four Montmorency brothers, even though they were Catholic; they were saved by the absence of the maréchal de Montmorency, the eldest of this house, who had left to go hunting the Thursday before.64 The maréchal de Cossé was the ninth on the list: then the sieur de Biron and several others.65 They shut the doors of the Louvre on them on purpose so that they could be hunted. And the sieur Claude Marcel, meeting up with the sieur de Thoré, warned him to leave promptly if he loved his life, and that it was not a good day to be in Paris for those of his family. As for the maréchal de Cossé, without the pleas of the damoiselle de Chasteauneuf who used her good standing with [LIIII] the duc d’Anjou for his sake, he would have died with the others, as well as the sieur de Biron, if he had not quickly retreated into the Arsenal. The King of Navarre was saved thanks to the request of Madame the sister of the king, his new wife: and the prince de Condé by the duc de Nevers, his brother-in-law, who argued that 62. Charles de Louviers, known as Maurevel or Maurevert (d. 1583). Maurevel is generally believed to be the assassin hired to kill Gaspard de Coligny on August 22, 1572. 63. Plutarch, Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 123 C. 64. Charles, Guillaume, François, and Henri de Montmorency. François de Montmorency (1531–79) and Henri de Montmorency (1534–1614) are better known. François served as a marshal of France and later governor of Paris and Ile-de France; Henri was governor of Languedoc. During his tenure, Henri forged a compact with the Protestants of Languedoc promising protection for both Catholics and Huguenots. See Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 60, 106; Mack P. Holt, Renaissance and Reformation France (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 161–62. 65. Artus de Cossé-Brissac (1512–82), marshal of France and superintendent of finances under Charles IX, considered a Catholic moderate. Armand de Gontaut, sieur de Biron (1524–92), marshal of France who laid siege to the Huguenot stronghold of La Rochelle in 1573. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 96, 166.

Marvelous Discourse 163 he was young and delicate, and could easily change his mind.66 God, who did not wish to ruin the kingdom entirely in a single day, spared them from this horrible massacre. The body of the admiral (whose head was first cut off to present to the queen) was taken to the gallows of Montfaucon, where one evening a few days later, in order to feast her eyes on it, she went to see it, and brought her sons, her daughter, and her nephew along with her.67 I leave you to imagine whether this view was worthy of these princes and why she brought them there, to accustom them to all sorts of cruelty: for she made of this such an ordinary thing, as there is no spectacle too cruel for her to take a singular pleasure in it, and which she does not wish to attend. Many notable gentlemen, of whom one day we will have great need to counter the foreigners, were this night villainously put to death, even a few good Catholics, among which were monsieur de Villemor, Master of Requests and son of the late Bertrand, Guardian of the Seals, who became afterward the cardinal de Sens; and monsieur Rouillard, Counselor of the Church in the Court of Parliament, and Canon of Nôtre Dame, both of them recognized by everyone to be good Catholics but enemies of cruelty, injustice, and sedition. The rogues and scoundrels of city, stirred up by those who were screaming that the Huguenots had tried to kill the king, and in the hopes of pillaging, massacred everyone they encountered, without respect for sex, age, or station. The queen bid the governors do the same in the cities under their control. This was done in the cruelest ways in all the cities of the kingdom, even though in a few of them, the executioners preferred to leave their profession rather than be employed in the killing of such unfortunate people [LV] who had not been condemned under the law. Whoever killed more was better rewarded. A few were strangled in prison at the behest of those who were seeking confiscations from them: notably, the maréchal de Retz had Lomenie, the king’s secretary, killed in the prisons of the Châtelet, in order to get his land.68 66. Louis Gonzaga, duc de Nevers (1539–95). Although a hardline Catholic who initially worked with the Guises and the Catholic League because of mounting debts, Nevers remained loyal to the crown after Catherine de Médicis resolved his arrears. He continued to support the monarchy even under Henri IV. Roelker, One King, One Faith, 371. The prince de Condé here is Henri Ier, son of Louis Ier de Condé, Antoine de Bourbon’s brother who was embroiled in the Amboise conspiracy, and who was killed in battle in 1569. At the time narrated in the text, Henri Ier de Condé was about seventeen years old. 67. François Hotman’s De Furoribus gallicis depicts a similar scene, as early as its 1573 edition; cited in DM, p. 205, n. 166. 68. The maréchal de Retz: Alberto de Gondi. Martial de Loménie, secretary of state for finances under Charles IX, became seigneur of Versailles, a village of some five hundred inhabitants, in 1561. Imprisoned in 1571, he signed his lands over to Gondi and was later murdered during the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres. In 1632, the Gondi family sold Versailles—site of the future palace—to Louis XIII. The pamphlet is showing how murder for the sake of personal greed was committed under the cloak of religion.

164 Marvelous Discourse The history of this event would be a long one for anyone who would wish to treat it in detail. I am horrified to do so and everyone knows it. To dispute here whether or not those who were massacred had been plotting [to overthrow the crown] is a superfluous thing.69 All presumptions go against this. No preparation for such a plot was seen: and so many bodies were naked, each one far from the other, without arms or company, and those who advised using this pretext admit that it was a pretty invention. But if this had been the case, why were they not tried in the courts? Why were they not executed under the law? Those who killed them in their beds, could they not arrest them? The admiral, from the moment he was wounded, was he not in the hands of the king’s guards, which had been placed around him to forestall the efforts of those seeking sedition? Were there such a great number of Huguenots that the king’s guard alone could not master them? Were there not the people of Paris? Were there not men of war there? In this way, the reputation [of the king] would not be questioned by the foreign princes, and they would have readily lent him a hand in punishing the conspirators.70 But these are inventions of a tyrant like Maximinus to exterminate the nobles among the Roman people. Whoever wishes to kill his dog, it is said, claims the dog is mad. The wolf that tries to devour the lamb makes him believe that he has disturbed the water.71 Now the queen was convinced by her own letters, and by those that she had the king her son write to the governors of this kingdom’s provinces and to his ambassadors, to tell the story of this event to the princes his neighbors. In these letters she explicitly claimed to be greatly aggrieved by what happened to the admiral and to his people, and that it happened against her will and that of the king. But that [LVI], in order to take vengeance for their old quarrels, messieurs de Guise forced themselves upon the guards whom the king ordered to safeguard the admiral, such that they could not be stopped. I call as witness to this all the governors. The ambassadors as well will confess to me that they blushed from shame when, a few days after reporting to the foreign princes that messieurs de Guise had been responsible for the massacre, and having shown letters from the king about it, they were told to change their story, and were charged with making it known that the king himself had ordered it because a conspiracy against their majesties had been discovered.72 They remember well that they were not sure how 69. Charles’s explanation for the massacre was that they were thwarting a seditious plot. See his letters to the vicomte de Horte and the German princes, 23 and 23 bis., in this collection, and Catherine’s allusion to the “rebels” in letter 24 to Philip of Spain. 70. The 1576 text refers only to “la reputation” without explaining whose reputation is at stake. The 1575 text indicates that the reputation is “du Roy”; implicitly, the 1576 text also seems to refer to Charles’s reputation. “Par ce moyen” / “In this way”: the author is referring to the official story issued by the French crown regarding the massacre. 71. A reference to Aesop’s fable of the wolf and the lamb. 72. This very interesting point is made in a number of contemporary sources. Cazauran notes the following: “The king, in effect, hesitated. In his letters of 24 August, he speaks of a tussle between the

Marvelous Discourse 165 to begin to speak of it, since they had to give the lie to what they had previously said. I beseech you, let us examine this act judiciously: let us penetrate into the pernicious counsel of this woman, and let us see if she seeks the extermination only of the Huguenots, or of all the nobles of this kingdom, without regard to religion.73 The admiral is bid come to court for the wedding of the king’s sister, and after a thousand promises and a thousand caresses, he is massacred there along with the most notable men among the Huguenots who had accompanied the King of Navarre. I could say that the royal goodwill should be respected at least, and that one should not use the wedding of the king’s sister for such a traitorous, disloyal, and villainous act. But let us agree that one could somehow tolerate this, and that one may not need to have all these considerations paid to the person of an admiral, who had commanded the Huguenot armies, who had acted like a chief—and through such behavior had acquired the antipathy of the king. Was it necessary to take revenge on the entire Huguenot nobility, which for the most part, notwithstanding the difference in religion, was so affectionately disposed to the service of the king that it offered itself up for war against the King of Spain at its own expense? Was it necessary to pursue them even into the chamber of the [LVII] new bride? But it will be argued that these were gentlemen who were esteemed among those of their religion, who are called the “Chiefs of the Faction,” and who would have soon renewed and reignited the war that we were trying to stifle. Let us suppose that this response is understandable. Was it necessary then to kill so many poor citizens of Paris? Who in one week saw themselves Full of songs, perfumes, and pleasures. Full of blood and trembling.74 Was it necessary to kill artisans, old men, women, children, anyone incapable of bearing arms, who were moved only by the desire for their spiritual health to

partisans of Guise and those of the admiral; to the governors of the provinces he sent orders and counter orders, and the 26th of August, before the Parlement, he proclaimed that he needed to punish them in order to cope with a conspiracy. From 1573, the first dialogue of the Réveille-Matin refers to these letters (Dialogue auquel sont traitées plusieurs choses advenues aux Lutheriens … Bâle, 1573, 64–75). The De Furoribus gallicis, insisting on these about-faces, even cites the letters and the declaration to Parlement, in both the Latin and French editions.” DM, p. 207, n. 171. 73. Compare this with Brantôme’s defensive insistence, in this volume, that Catherine loved the French nobility. 74. The citation from Plutarch that most closely corresponds to this verse is Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 122H, comparing the soul of the superstitious to the city described by Sophocles: “Full of songs, perfumes, incense / Full of tears and trembling”; cf. DM, p. 209, n. 172.

166 Marvelous Discourse follow another religion?75 But in fact, these were Huguenots who were obstinate in their opinion: since there was no other choice, it was necessary to exterminate them all. Now I cannot pass over this point so crassly. There used to be the hope of winning them over in another way. I cannot say that ever did truly Christian princes behave in such a cruel way toward the Jews or even the Turks. And it was certainly seen that the good Catholics in France were so little in favor of this act that they saved as many Huguenots as possible. But again, I will content myself for now to accept their irrational explanation as payment. Was it necessary then to include messieurs de Montmorency, monsieur the maréchal de Cossé their ally, all of them principal officers of this crown; and monsieur de Biron and other lords; why were they on the list of those who were to be massacred? I beseech you, what did they do? Of what are we trying to make them guilty? For what do they deserve such iniquitous treatment? Were they Huguenots? On the contrary, they were without comparison better Catholics than the queen,76 and never had there been better ones: in fact there are no lords in France who have fought more courageously against the Huguenots than they. I would rather not recall that the late monsieur the constable, their father, was taken and wounded in the Battle of Dreux, and that he lost a son there, and afterward was wounded [LVIII] on Saint Denis’s day, of which he died at 80 years old.77 I know well that the good offices of fathers hardly excuse the bad offices of children. But was there ever a battle against the Huguenots where those of this house, which they are trying to kill off, were not among the most important players, who did not have the principal responsibilities, who did not acquit themselves honorably, and who did not risk their lives many times, beyond the call of duty? Let us ask all the captains of the kingdom about this, let the armies give their opinion, and let even the Huguenots declare whose blows seemed the hardest. We will see how they respond. As for monsieur the maréchal de Cossé, who honorably received many wounds in past wars against the enemies of this crown (I leave aside here the services of the maréchal de Brissac his brother, and the comte de Brissac his nephew who was killed fighting the Huguenots); is there anyone who can rob him of the honor of the third religious war, and who can deny that he is responsible for most of the fortunate successes that we have had in that war?78 Who gave counsel in 75. The text here begins to suggest that the motivation was to kill the Huguenots for religious reasons, rather than to eliminate the nobility. In this way, the text perpetuates two coexisting narratives about the massacres. On the various “stories” that were disseminated about the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres for Catholic, Protestant, and political agendas, see Robert Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988). 76. This is an additional attack on the queen’s piety that is not present in the 1575 edition. 77. The constable’s son was Gabriel de Montmorency, baron de Montberon (1541–62). 78. Charles Ier de Cossé-Brissac, maréchal de Brissac (ca. 1505–63), brother of Artus de Cossé-Brissac, maréchal de Cossé; Timoléon de Cossé (1543–69), son of Charles Ier de Cossé-Brissac, killed during the third War of Religion.

Marvelous Discourse 167 the Battle of Moncontour, where ten thousand Huguenots were killed? Who was responsible for several notable feats of arms that came about during this war? And for what crime should monsieur de Biron be charged, he who risked his life so many times in the civil wars, and so faithfully and successfully commanded our artillery? These men are certainly not Huguenots, they will say to me. These men have waged war against them as much as possible, but those of the house of Montmorency are close relatives and friends of the admiral, and the maréchal de Cossé is their ally. Certainly, but let us suppose that the admiral was conspiring [to overthrow the crown], does it follow that all his Catholic relatives should be massacred? Is it said that even the allies of his relatives should be attacked, or the friends of his allies? Or if the king himself gave him proof a thousand times of his friendship and called him his father so shortly before the massacre, is it prohibited for those who are naturally obliged to him to show him some sort of friendship? [LIX] What house in France would be exempt from crime, what gentleman could escape the noose, if it is indeed a capital crime, not only punishable by law but also punishable without some form of a trial, to be the friend, relative, or ally of the admiral, or to be one of their allies, relatives, or friends? Where is the law among even the most barbarous people of the world that executes not just the friends but even the children of a criminal convicted of lèse-majesté even if they are not convicted of it themselves? The cause of this massacre, then, does not lie there. But we want to exterminate all the chiefs of the nobility, those who were born noble or who were ennobled through notable services, either their own or those of their predecessors, men who could legitimately oppose our malicious acts, those who because of their naturally good characters cannot sympathize with our disloyal and traitorous deeds. This is Catherine’s goal: this is what she strives for, and to reach it she must start with the tip. She has had an infinite number of people killed in the wars, and, as Homer says, Of valiant men she has thrown a great number, Before their time, into the tenebrous shadow Of the hollow tomb.79 The closest to the royal blood, the heads of the houses of Guise and Montmorency, one of them a grand master, the other a constable of France, were killed in the wars. Now she wants to exterminate those of the house of Montmorency along with the admiral, and then protest everywhere that the Guises committed this act because of their own particular quarrels. Now this is how far her malice goes. In order to execute the massacre of Paris she used messieurs de Guise as if it were they who, for the sake of personal vengeance, had the admiral killed, even though they governed themselves in such a way during the massacre that today several 79. Plutarch, Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 15 C.

168 Marvelous Discourse Huguenot gentlemen acknowledge that they owe their lives to the Guises.80 And then, in order to render the Guises odious to all the foreign princes, she tried to accuse them of being the authors of everything, and excused herself at their expense. Then she expelled them from court, not to [LX] put a good face on it, but in order to shut the doors on them and bar them as soon as they had left so that they could never return. And then afterward (perhaps) put them on trial as persons who had disturbed the public peace and forced themselves against the king’s guard in order to act upon their vengeance, a trick this woman has learned well from her Machiavelli. She thinks that those from the house of Montmorency who escaped are such close relatives to the house of Châtillon, and were such good friends of the admiral, that when they see that the king will not intervene, they will assemble their friends to avenge the admiral’s murder, as they were greatly vexed when he was wounded. Thus these houses of Guise and Montmorency will be irreconcilable, and in mortal combat for the rest of their lives. But whichever side suffers a loss, whether one man dies or another, for her it is always equally a pastime and a gain, it is by these means that she continues to approach her goal. Now God, who does not wish her to succeed, and who seems to have preserved these two houses much to the confusion of this accursed woman, in order to safeguard them and to restore this kingdom, opened the eyes of messieurs de Guise such that that they refused to leave court unless the king admitted to the entire act before Parliament to exonerate them. Meeting afterward with the maréchal de Montmorency, they wanted him to declare clearly that it was the queen, and not them, who had solicited Maurevel (using the comte de Retz,81 who brought him to her and who was their messenger) to fire the shot that wounded the admiral, and that although they had occasion to take pleasure at his death, they would not have had him killed in this way without the express commandment of the king. Let us look now at how this woman surpasses herself in maliciousness. We all know that there was never any conspiracy: we all saw that the act had the hand of the king and queen written all over it. Messieurs de Guise [LXI] are wise and will not allow her to pacify the foreign princes at their expense. To make everyone believe, then, that there was a conspiracy, she put on trial monsieur de Briquemaut, a seventy-year-old gentleman who had spent his life in the wars of the late kings with distinction; she also put on trial Cavagnes, counselor in the parliamentary

80. The text here seems to gloss over the claim, made elsewhere, that it was the duc de Guise (“Le Balafré”) who killed the admiral, and then participated in the initial brutalization of his body during the second, successful, assassination attempt. Charles IX refers to the Guise vendetta himself in his letters to foreign courts (see letter 23 bis. in this volume). The DM narrative references a story that the duc de Guise hid several Huguenots during the massacre. See Barbara Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross: Catholics and Huguenots in Sixteenth-Century Paris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 104. 81. The Florentine Gondi, maréchal de Retz, whom the text will excoriate in its conclusion.

Marvelous Discourse 169 court of Toulouse.82 Both of them were taken prisoner during the fury of the massacre. At first, she promised to spare their lives if they would willingly confess that there had been a conspiracy. When they refused she had them shown the rack.83 Unable to pull anything else from them, she chose judges to condemn them who felt such a prick of conscience that they confessed to find no reason to condemn them to death. Finally she replaced these judges with others who, in order to give some sort of form to their trial, and to exonerate themselves for posterity, found a calumnious detail that would condemn them for the crime of stealing the deniers of the king but which they had never in fact touched. Nevertheless they were executed as conspirators, even though there was never any witness to attest to it, neither their own confession nor anyone else’s deposition. And in fact these prisoners continued to protest up until their death (which the queen wished to attend, and ordered the king, his brothers, and the King of Navarre to come with her) that they had never heard speak of this, and they demanded that such an iniquitous ruling be brought before the righteous judgment of God. I know that this story will seem strange to you: but you will be even more surprised by that of the Catholics, whom they had killed shortly afterward. [The final part of the Discours merveilleux includes an extended comparison of Catherine de Médicis with Brunhilda, the seventh-century Visigothic queen who assumed power over the Franks.] Pernicious Government of Women in France. Otho Frising. Aimoin, Monk. Sire de Joinville. Enguerrand de Monstreuil. Annales De France.84 [XCI] I do not wish to speak of the monstrous vices of our queen mother nor that of other female rulers. This queen alone would need her own thick volume for that: time and opportunity will see to it that they are published. I speak only of government here. Fredegund, Brunhilda, Plectrude, and Judith ignited and encouraged [XCII] civil wars in this kingdom throughout their whole lives, and sowed jealousy between father and son, brother and brother, in order to maintain their position in the midst of discord.85 Having invaded the tutelage of King 82. François de Beauvais, seigneur de Briquemault (1502–72), was arrested during the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in Paris on charges of having conspired against the king. He was executed in October 1572. 83. The language is ambiguous. It is unclear whether Catherine merely threatened them with the rack or if she in fact had them tortured. 84. The author includes his sources on Brunhilda. 85. Fredegund: wife of the late sixth-century Frankish king Chilperic, accused by the contemporary historian, Gregory of Tours, of having several Frankish nobles murdered. Brunhilda: Wife of Sigibert, sixth-century king of the eastern Frankish kingdom of Austria, and daughter of the Visigothic king of Spain. Her Spanish heritage would earn her a reputation as a “foreigner” in evidence in the

170 Marvelous Discourse Saint Louis [Louis IX], who was eleven or twelve years old, to prevent the Estates from taking the government away from her, Blanche pitted the Catholics in war against the Albigensians, who were declared heretics by decree of the pope: and everyone was surprised afterward that all the great nobles of the kingdom were Albigensians, or were in cahoots with them, which is what she wanted everyone to believe.86 In fact, under this pretext, she got rid of them: and as the king her son had come into his majority, after she had raised him very austerely, she found a way to keep the government to herself by sending him off to conquer the Holy Land.87 This is the lesson that our Queen Catherine learned from Blanche. Thus we see today that she wants us all to believe that we are all Huguenots, and she speaks true when she says she has chosen Blanche as her model for governing.88 If the Estates of this kingdom had not judiciously remedied the boundless audacity of Isabeau of Bavaria, the wife of Charles VI, and had not sent her to make gardens at Tours, would she not have corrupted the nature of others, as she showed in her younger years?89 Having been charged by the Estates of Tours Discours merveilleux. During her regency, after the death of her second husband, Merovech, son of Chilperic, Brunhilda removed several powerful Austrasian noblemen to ensure her authority. Cf. Edward James, The Franks (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988) 16, 173, 180. Plectrude: Wife of Pippin II, late seventh- and early eighth-century ruler of Frankish Austrasia. Stepmother of Charles Martel, whom she imprisoned after the death of Pippin II; see Paul Fouracre and Richard A. Gerberding, Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996), 84–85. Judith: Judith of Bavaria, second wife of Louis the Pious (king of the Franks after Charlemagne, his father), and an influential figure in Louis’s court. The birth of her son, Charles (Charles the Bald), provoked a succession dispute among Louis’s sons by his first marriage. Judith advocated for her son, who ultimately was crowned king after Louis’s death; see Jim Bradbury, The Capetians: Kings of France, 937–1328 (New York: Continuum Books, 2007), 12–13. 86. The thirteenth-century Pope Innocent III called for a crusade against the Albigensians (also known as Cathars), a Christian sect predominantly in Languedoc, whom the pope had declared heretical. The campaign against the Albigensians lasted twenty years (1209–29). Cazauran notes that the DM author appears to be combining his sources. François Hotman mentions several of these female predecessors in his Gaule françoise, and is especially hostile to Blanche de Castile, but does not mention the Albigensians. The Chroniques et annales de France, however, is a clear source for Fredegund and Brunhilda, and also mentions the dangers presented by the Albigensians. DM, p. 261, n. 275. 87. The reference is to the seventh crusade (1248–54), or the first crusade of Louis IX. Cf. Bradbury, The Capetians, 209. 88. See also, in this volume, the Venetian ambassador Giovanni Correro on his conversation with Catherine regarding Blanche de Castile. 89. Isabeau de Bavière (ca. 1370–1435): Wife of Charles VI and mother of Charles VII. Rumors of her adulterous affair with Louis, duc d’Orléans, put the legitimacy of her son, Charles, into question. The Treaty of Troyes (1420) disinherited Charles in part on the basis of these rumors, and made Henry V of England successor to the French throne. Charles VII would officially recover the throne after his crowning at Reims, following Joan of Arc’s defeat of the English at Orléans in 1429. John Wagner, Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 166.

Marvelous Discourse 171 to care for the person of her brother King Charles VIII, madame de Beaujeu wanted to advance her own hand in the government, and became so jealous of the duc d’Orléans that she tried to arrest him.90 This distressed him so much that he escaped to wherever he could.91 It was he who became Louis XII, called “father of the people,” one of the best princes that ever was, and to whom from that time onward all the great nobles of the kingdom deferred the regency. It is of recent memory, during the time of François Ier, who during his journey to Italy left madame Louise de Savoie, his mother, regent; was she not the cause of the loss of the duchy of Milan, when she made Semblançay (who was then executed for doing this very thing) give her [XCIII] the four hundred thousand écus that the king had sent to monsieur de Lautrec, who was forced to abandon everything since his army fell apart for want of payment?92 So it was that Brunhilda, according to all, seems to have taken the prize among all women rulers for wickedness; and our historians, discussing the shameless Fredegund, call her the most unfortunate woman in the world after Brunhilda. When one considers the actions of our regent, it seems that she has no other goal in life but to surpass Brunhilda in all evildoings, as can easily be seen by whosoever compares the actions of the one with those of the other. A certain meddler named Belleforest, in the 90. Anne de France, or Anne de Beaujeu (1461–1522), daughter of Louis XI and sister of Charles VIII, for whom she served as regent at her father’s request. Cf. David Potter, A History of France, 1460–1560: The Emergence of a Nation State (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 60. 91. The author appears to distinguish between the two forms of regency, the first of which oversees the person or the education of the king (tutelle), the second of which oversees the governing of affairs (curatelle); the queen mother, or an adult female relative close to the king (as in the case of Anne de Beaujeu) was customarily assigned tutelle, while princes of the blood, or male relatives of rank, were given curatelle. The controversy surrounding women like Anne de Beaujeu and Isabeau de Bavière is that they were not content to hold only the first form of regency and insisted also upon the second. Crawford’s Perilous Performances explains the difference between tutelle and curatelle, p. 20. Catherine de Médicis also appears dismissive of the distinction in her letter 14 in this volume. 92. Louise de Savoie (1476–1531), mother of François Ier and Marguerite de Navarre, was perhaps François Ier’s most influential counselor, and his regent on several occasions. For a full account of her influence see Pauline Matarasso, Queen’s Mate: Three Women of Power in France on the Eve of the Renaissance (Aldershot, UK, and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2001). The reference is to Jacques de Beaune, baron de Semblançay who, strikingly, was the grandfather of Renaud de Beaune, whose funeral oration for Catherine de Médicis is included in this volume (see Appendix). The baron de Semblançay had been the superintendent of finances for François Ier. After François recovered the duchy of Milan in 1521, he left it in the care of Odet de Foix, maréchal de Lautrec. Lautrec’s poor behavior succeeded in both alienating the Milanese and accelerating plans to take Milan back from the French. Lautrec demanded money from Louise de Savoie to pay his troops in order to defend the city. Although she and Semblançay agreed to pay the money, Louise eventually backed out of this promise. Louise ultimately had Semblançay executed for larceny and malfeasance in 1527, on the same day that Renaud de Beaune was born. See William Robertson, The History of Charles V (Paris: Baudry, 1828), 186–87 and Frederic J. Baumgartner, “Renaud de Beaune, Politique Prelate,” Sixteenth Century Journal 9, no. 2 (July 1978), 99–100.

172 Marvelous Discourse additions he made to the annals of France, defended Brunhilda because Saint Gregory greatly praised her virtues in the epistles he wrote for her: this made me (Belleforest says) almost doubt whether what is written against her is true or if her enemies have filled our ears with such calumnies.93 Perhaps this know-itall Belleforest saw that Brunhilda and Catherine were marvelously harmonious with each other, and in order to mask the shame of our regent, in whose kitchen he wished to sample some soup, he thus soiled the paper on which he wrote. But I would suspect rather that, as he is totally ignorant, he was not intelligent enough to consider whether Brunhilda pretended to be devout in order to continue her evildoings more licentiously, and by receiving and paying for the relics that were sent to her from Rome, she lulled to sleep this good fellow of a pope, who made a big deal of her, as long as he could sell her his little trifles.94 But without spending more time on Belleforest, let us compare Brunhilda with Catherine. Whoever wants to know more, read the histories of France. Brunhilda was of the Spanish nation, Catherine is Italian and Florentine. Both are foreigners who feel neither affection nor friendship toward the kingdom [XCIIII]. Now, Italian is worse than Spanish, and Florentine worse than any other Italian. Brunhilda was the daughter of Athanagild King of Spain, which explains her love of the Spanish nobility. Catherine is the daughter of Lorenzo de Medici, from a house of merchants elevated through usury, which is incapable of loving the nobility and has tried only to exterminate it. A sibyl (so says our history) foretold that a brunette would come from Spain who would kill kings and princes, and who would ultimately be torn apart by horses.95 You have seen the lovely predictions that were made about Catherine at the time of her birth, notably that she would ruin the place where she would marry, and the various opinions that were given on this point. Brunhilda was the daughter of a heretic Aryan, schooled in Aryanism and nourished with it. And Catherine is of an Atheist race, fed on Atheism, and has filled this kingdom, and especially the court of France, with atheists. Now, it is a lesser evil to err in one religion than not to have any at all, and to fail in one aspect of faith than to fail in it entirely. Brunhilda was married to Sigisbert, King of Metz, on the advice of Godonne, a magistrate of the palace, who went all the way to Spain to get her, and who gave her every honor possible; in return she had him killed shortly afterward. 93. The reference is to François de Belleforest (1530–83), author, poet, and historiographer whose Grandes annales (1579) would attack the Protestant jurist and writer, François Hotman; see Simonin, ed., Dictionnaire des lettres françaises, 125–26. The author appears to speak in Belleforest’s voice in this last phrase. 94. The pope is described as a bon homme, which the text would be using ironically; according to Randle Cotgrave’s Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues (London: Adam Islip, 1611), “bon homme” is “A title commonly bestowed on an old man … in reverence of their age.” Bonhomme, however, can also refer to a Cathar priest. 95. This is the fate of Brunhilda.

Marvelous Discourse 173 Catherine, married to good King Henri when he was duc d’Orléans, has always hated all those who have done anything good for her. She could not stand to see monsieur the constable alive, he who traveled to the other side of the kingdom to receive her from Florence, and who was the principal author both of her marriage and of every honor that she received afterward.96 She had the cardinal de Chastillon poisoned, he who almost singlehandedly prevented her from being sent back to Italy, and who saved her life when she was sick during her voyage to Châlons in Champagne. Finally, she had the admiral massacred, he who convinced the Estates to hand the government over to her. Brunhilda, seeing that her son Chedebert or Childebert perceived the pernicious nature of her counsel after his father’s death, poisoned him in a bath, in order to rule the kingdom under [XCV] the pretext of the minority of Theudebert and Theuderic his sons: the first became the King of Metz and Austrasia, the second of Orléans. Catherine, during her first years in the kingdom, had monsieur François the dauphin, the older brother of King Henri her husband, poisoned so that she could move closer to the crown. She led the late King of Navarre to the slaughterhouse especially since the government of this kingdom legitimately belonged to him. Now, without treating certain presumptions that I could allege regarding the death of King Charles IX, she today openly holds monseigneur the duke her son and the King of Navarre her son-in-law prisoner, in order to occupy the regency more easily.97 And who knows if they would not already be dead at the point of a knife had the prince de Condé (whom she does not want to let near the crown) not already escaped from her hands. Brunhilda loved for his most intimate services a Proclade Roman or Lombard, a man of humble status and of no value, whom she honored with the most important estates of the kingdom, which rightly belonged to the nobility, and enriched through taxes on the people.98 Such that the little scoundrel was made into a great lord, for she bought him a duchy and gave it to him. For the same reasons, Catherine loves a Florentine named Gondi, of Marrano race, the son of a banker who was bankrupted twice in Lyon, and of a woman who was first a courtesan, then a bawd, in this same city.99 In former times 96. Anne de Montmorency. 97. The author refers to the imprisonment of François d’Alençon (the youngest of Catherine’s sons, made duc d’Anjou after the ascension of his brother, Henri III), and Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre, in the Louvre. The implication is that Catherine imprisoned her son and son-in-law to forestall any threat to her regency that they represented. Kingdon asserts that this imprisonment may have been one of the principal motivations behind the composition of the DM, with the specific goal of supporting the duc d’Alençon and raising him to the throne. Kingdon, Myths, 210–11. 98. Brunhilda’s lover was Protadius, eventually killed by Theuderic’s army. 99. The text again refers to Albert de Gondi (see note 50 above); the text’s anti-Semitism is implied in the claim that Gondi is a marrano, or a converted Jew of Iberian origin.

174 Marvelous Discourse He begged only for scraps, Not for cauldrons or swords.100 He was seen following the mule of a paymaster; after that he became the clerk of a steward of provisions for the camp at Amiens. Soon thereafter he was the queen’s favorite and Master of the King’s Wardrobe: and now we find him, without having performed any good service to the kingdom, the Count of Retz, and practically the only Marshal of France. Brunhilda governed herself only [XCVI] according to her Proclade, and could not make him grand enough for her taste: but she always feared that the nobles of kingdom would oppose her. Nevertheless she had Ratinus and Egila killed, both of them great lords. Then she provoked the war between Theuderic King of Orléans, whom she controlled, and Clothar King of Paris, with the intent (so says our history) of getting rid of the nobles, notably de Berthoald, lord of the palace, an old and wise knight who was killed in battle on the Estampes river. After his death she made her Proclade lord of the palace.101 Catherine, seeking to govern all with her Gondi, and fearing lest the chief nobles of the kingdom oppose his excessive advancement, which was founded only on the immoderate passion of a woman, ignited a civil war in this kingdom, armed brothers and neighbors against each other, and did so much that in a short time she got rid of the King of Navarre, who was the first prince of the blood and in his majority, the constable Anne de Montmorency, François de Lorraine the duc de Guise and grand master, all of them peers of France, as well as the maréchal de Saint-André, and an infinite number of other lords, by poison and by glaive, so that this little wretch alone can be at her side to do whatever pleases him. Theudebert, King of Metz, was in the beginning the favorite grandson of Brunhilda, the most loved, and the one to whom she gave the better part of the treasures belonging to the late king his father: but in short time he perceived her designs, and chased her from his kingdom, such that she was forced to go with her Proclade to Theuderic King of Orléans, her other grandson, by whom she made Proclade the lord of the palace. You have seen how at the beginning the Huguenots were the faithful subjects of the king, the favorites of this good lady Catherine, the most welcomed at court. They now perceive her frauds, and no longer wish to negotiate with her—thus she plays the perfect Catholic, and governs us through the counsel of her Gondi, however it pleases him. Proclade [XCVII] could not forget his nature: he burdened the people with taxes and tithes; he diminished in all sorts of ways the princes and lords of Theuderic’s realm, for which he earned the hatred of all. Every day Gondi introduces a thousand inventions to trample the people, puts all the taxes and subsidies of France in the hands of Italian tax collectors, 100. Plutarch, Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 30 E. 101. Like the section on the massacre, this concluding portion of the DM emphasizes that Catherine seeks to rid France of the nobility for the sake of her own tyranny.

Marvelous Discourse 175 divides this kingdom among those of his own kind, and finally, is so presumptuous in seeing himself tolerated by this woman that he utterly despises the princes of the blood, seeks to control them absolutely, and make them his valets. What became of Proclade? The princes and lords of the kingdom of Orléans, which included almost a third of France, began to be annoyed and think of themselves. To distract them, Brunhilda impeded them in other matters, and continued to rid herself of some of them: then, upon the advice of Proclade, sowed war between her two grandsons Theudebert and Theuderic, making poor Theuderic (whom she controlled at the time) believe that Theudebert, who had previously been her favorite grandson, was a bastard and the son of a concubine. Already the princes and great lords of this kingdom were starting to realize that there was a grudge against them, and our good queen greatly feared lest they unite together to ruin the grandeur that Gondi sought by diminishing them. And so it was necessary to put them to work so they would not have the leisure to think of uniting. She thus makes all us other Catholics (who believed her and who continue to believe her to our great misfortune) think that the Huguenots, who previously were her most beloved, are not the faithful subjects of the king, that they are rebels, and that they must be driven out of the house as bastards and illegitimate children. Through such wiles war is renewed, and we kill our brothers, relatives, friends, and with them we also die ourselves. After much blood was spilled to fill Brunhilda’s appetite, the lords of the kingdom of Orléans, where she was ruling under the name of Theuderic her grandson, returned [XCVIII] to their first opinion, and advised the king to make peace with his brother, showing him the injustice of the war, and the intention behind pushing him to fight.102 The king was inclined to take their advice, but she who had all the power wanted to hear none of it, and Proclade steeled himself in opposition, as peace and agreement between the two brothers was the capital enemy of his grandeur, which he could not maintain except through discord between them. In the end, these lords, seeing that only this Lombard hampered their good advice, sought him out in his tent and killed him there by common agreement, then admonished King Theuderic to make peace with his brother. The principal lords of this kingdom, who see that their lives were put in danger with little thought, that those who died in the civil wars were mocked, and that they even wanted to massacre them pell-mell with the Huguenots, were for the most part resolved to work toward the establishment of the public peace, never to return to the civil war that would be their undoing. But whether it is because they have 102. In the French, the following description of Brunhilda is written in the present tense. For the sake of clarity, we have used the past tense in the English translation. However, readers may note that the text later moves to describing Catherine as if she were Brunhilda (substituting the name Brunhilda for Catherine), such that the use of the present tense when speaking of the Visigothic Brunhilda becomes an effective rhetorical trick.

176 Marvelous Discourse lost part of this ancient French magnanimity, or whether they hope to remedy such misfortunes through more gentle means, they have not yet undertaken to kill this little galant, even though they see him as the principal counselor behind the civil wars, disloyalties, treasons, and massacres that have already occurred, and that they [the queen and Gondi] seek more of in order to exterminate them. Brunhilda, a woman with a turbulent mind, wanted to avenge herself at all costs for the death of her lover, and persecuted the principal authors of that act, Utile and Bolfus, unto death. This vengeance could be understandable, since they killed her beloved: but not satisfied with this, she once again provoked war between her grandsons, between the two brothers and their kingdoms of Metz and Orléans, reminding Theuderic that she knew of this old calumny, [XCIX] namely that his brother Theudebert was a bastard and the son of a concubine. See how much worse our Catherine is on this point. She has had our brothers massacred by the thousands under the shadow of the marriage of her own daughter: I mean infinite Huguenot gentlemen and others of all stations, and intended pell-mell to have our own principal leaders killed, such as messieurs de Montmorency, monsieur the maréchal de Cossé, and others; she used this pretext to expel messieurs de Guise from court, saying that they had plotted the massacre. We have endured all this with patience and give them no trouble, neither her nor her Proclade, and ask only to live in peace. But there it is: because we do not wish to dip our knife with her into the blood of our brothers, she persecutes us unto death as furiously as she pursued those who came before us, raising a thousand ambushes for us, hiring assassins by the hundreds to slice our throats. She still lives, and even after so many malicious acts, she is still greatly esteemed by some of us. I do not know through what unfortunate turn of fate she armed us against each other under the same pretext as before, under the shadow of religion, she who has no religion and has never had any. What will be the end of all this, if God does not soon give us understanding and courage? We wish, this I believe, to always practice the dictum of Phocylides, He who wishes to become good in the end Often must allow himself to be circumvented.103 She has so cudgeled us that it is about time we feel the blows, and protect ourselves from her latest strike of the hand. To return to Brunhilda, Theuderic, King of Orléans, chased his brother Theudebert, King of Metz, from the kingdom as the bastard that she told him he was, destroyed with taxes almost all the nobility of those regions, besieged him in Cologne, and did not leave until he had Theudebert’s head and had sent the sons back to Brunhilda, who had them killed. No sooner had he committed this 103. Plutarch, Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 30 E.

Marvelous Discourse 177 heinous crime than he repented of it, and began to regret it marvelously in his conscience. It came to pass that he began to desire to marry the only daughter of his older brother, and he thought that this marriage was legitimate, since he believed (so goes the story) his dead brother to be a bastard. Brunhilda, who had used this pretext for a time in order to make them kill each other, and who had previously given him a concubine so that he would leave his first wife, began to suspect that he felt affection for this woman, who afterward could force her out of the government. Thus she told him that he could not make this marriage in good conscience, since she was the daughter of his brother. At that point he saw (but too late) this woman’s malice. Ah, wretched woman (he said), you made me kill my brother, you made me exterminate his house, and you told me that he was nothing to me. It did little for this miserable prince to be angry about it. For, a few days afterward, she poured poison for him, from which he died. Already have we killed enough of our brothers at Catherine’s instigation. Soon there will be no more of them: we have sacrificed them by the thousands to this Florentine Brunhilda, and still every day there are those among us who bring men to her to be slaughtered. Now, we should clearly recognize that her accusations that these men are bastards and rebels against the crown are false and purposely contrived to make us kill each other. Grace be to God, we are also beginning, for the most part, to feel remorse for the murders, cruelty, and massacres that we have tolerated, and to which some of us have lent a hand: and because we cannot resuscitate those who have died, we are starting at least to love and protect the few who are left. But what does our Brunhilda in this regard? Who can resist her anger? For if she desires something She will boldly dare to buy it With her own blood at the risk of losing her life.104 [CI] Do you not see her pouring the poison for her other son? And after having thus disemboweled herself with one hand, do you not see her holding the knife still bloody in the other, in order to slice our throats? How many Catholic gentlemen does she have killed every day? Who are messieurs de Montmorency, monsieur the maréchal de Cossé, and other Catholic lords whom she pursues unto death, if not the chief men among us whom she wants to kill to exterminate all of us afterward? Do you not see that to her a legitimate son is the same as a bastard, a Catholic the same as a Huguenot? That she loves neither one nor the other, and that she pretends to love one so long as he would murder his brother, only to kill him afterward? But to speak of things as they are, what kind of accord can we hope she will put between the two remaining brothers? Time will show 104. Plutarch, Oeuvres morales, vol. 1, f. 154 I.

178 Marvelous Discourse for sure that she will not tolerate them unless she sees them bend under the yoke of her desires. And, for the man who wants to stay in her good graces, she must either be everything to him or she must be nothing. Brunhilda got rid of her two sons, as you have heard. The nobility of the two kingdoms was extinguished for the most part. Now, instead of using the pretext of bastardy to ruin them, Brunhilda herself sought to govern the kingdoms as the governess of the bastards of Theuderic whom she had poisoned, and she tried to keep out Clothar, the King of Paris, the closest heir, and to whom these kingdoms belonged by right. Now she knew well that the lords of the country were endeavoring to protect his rights, and that a certain Garnier, who was Master of the Palace, refused to tolerate her regency, so illegitimately usurped. She thus pretended to use him for the affairs of the kingdom, and meanwhile wrote to one of her followers named Albon that he would do well to kill Garnier. God willed it that Albon tore up Brunhilda’s letters after reading them, and [CIL] that the bits were gathered and taken to Garnier who saved his own life as best he could, and helped Clothar, the legitimate heir, gain possession of the kingdoms that belonged to him. What does our Catherine do? You see how she follows in the footsteps of this patron of evil: or rather, see how she surpasses her in all ways. The king her son is on the brink of death. It seems that the King of Poland cannot come soon, as much because of his lack of will as because of the length of the journey. She wants to retain the government in her hands by whatever illegitimate means necessary. She does not want to assemble the Estates for this purpose, for she knows well that they have a very poor opinion of her actions, and that legally they would hand the government over to monsieur the duc d’Alençon as the closest blood relative, and already the lieutenant general of the late king. So, having fervently defamed him and rendered him odious through her calumny, she imprisons him with the King of Navarre, and tries to also arrest the prince de Condé. And knowing full well that the principal officers of the crown could not approve her malicious behavior in their hearts, and suspecting also that they would attempt to free their princes from her hands, she orders the sieurs de Joyeuse, Maugiron and Fourquevaux to seize monsieur the maréchal de Damville dead or alive, while she employs him at the same time for the pacification of her government.105 At the moment that they do this, she also seizes messieurs de Montmorency and de Cossé: then, to render them odious in the eyes of the people, she spreads the rumor that they conspired against her. God willing, this enterprise against the maréchal de Damville was discovered in time, and (if it pleases Him), He will not allow her to execute her evil will against the others. 105. Guillaume, vicomte de Joyeuse (1520–92); Laurent de Maugiron, sieur d’Ampuis (1528–88); Raimond Beccarie de Pavie, seigneur de Fourquevaux (1509–74); Henri de Montmorency-Damville (1534–1614), governor of Languedoc, marshal of France and (under Henri IV) constable of France, second son of the constable Anne de Montmorency.

Marvelous Discourse 179 But what became of Brunhilda, after so much cruelty, treason, parricides, and impieties? Clothar came to the crown in spite of her. All the Estates carried him (so to speak) on their shoulders [CIII] to the royal throne. The trial of Brunhilda was carried out publicly in the assembly of the Estates. Finally, by the common consent of all, Clothar pronounced aloud the sentence that each person had long been secretly imagining for her in his heart: she was dragged from the tail of a horse, and finished her malicious life torn to pieces. Now let everyone judge what kind of sentence Catherine deserves, who in one day has had more men, women, and children massacred than the men Brunhilda had killed in all of her wars. I am convinced that there is no one in his heart who does not wish for her a harsher judgment than what was given to Brunhilda. But I protest that I require no other vengeance than God’s and God’s alone, who in the right time and place will know well how to chastise the wrongs that she has done to the public and to each one of us. I desire only that Clothar be received as is his right, that our legitimate king reign, that our princes and lords be delivered from her bloody hands, that he to whom the government belongs be established there to remedy all the wrongs she has done, and to prevent those she could do, and will certainly do, if we let her continue. In conclusion, I shall speak to you, Messieurs the princes of the blood: the royal blood from which you descend calls you to this most holy and laudable enterprise.106 Do not endure any longer that the life of these poor princes and lords be placed at the discretion of the woman who bathes in your blood. Do not let foreigners, whom this does not concern, dishonor you by showing themselves more ardent about their deliverance than yourselves. To this same cause your duty and honor call you, French lords and gentlemen. It is not for a show of bravery that you carry arms. It is for the health of your princes, of your fatherland, and your own. Do not endure, then, that your princes be enslaved, that the principal officers of this crown put their lives in danger simply because of their desire to safeguard the throne, or that you be exposed to death every day in order to satisfy the vengeful appetite of a woman who wants both to avenge herself against you and through you. Let us recognize that, whatever difference of religion may exist between us, we are nevertheless all Frenchmen, legitimate children of the same fatherland, born in the same kingdom, subjects of the same king. Let Brunhilda no longer make us abandon our heritage at the point of a sword. Let her no longer make us believe that our brothers are bastards, illegitimate and other than true Frenchmen (so that we kill each other). In the end, as you see, she would kill us one and all. Let us march, then, all with one heart and one step. All, I say, from all the Estates and ranks, gentlemen, bourgeois, and peasants, and let us force her to 106. Jean Jacquart helpfully notes the princes of the blood: the cardinal de Bourbon, Henri de Condé, François de Bourbon-Conti, Charles de Vendôme, Charles comte de Soissons, and those belonging to the houses of La-Roche-sur-Yon and Montpensier. DM, p. 279, n. 302.

180 Marvelous Discourse liberate our princes and lords. To you, Messieurs of Paris, the opportunity presents itself to achieve this honor.107 Do not thus tolerate that any other than you prevail. Your city is the capital of this kingdom: the seat of our kings and princes. Do you permit thus that they be prisoners in the belly of your city walls? That those who have preserved your liberty for so long be captive when you have the power to deliver them? Do you allow Brunhilda to take refuge in your city while Clothar is held prisoner there? I know, Messieurs, that you will have none of this. God in His providence has desired her to bring them to a place of refuge while thinking to lead them into prison. For you will remember (I am certain) your ancient valor, you will take up your arms, you will go straight to the prisons where they are held, you will snatch them from the hands of this accursed Brunhilda: and there will be no enclosure, city wall, trellis nor guard that will prevent or delay this enterprise. Thus these poor princes and lords will owe their lives to you, you will make this kingdom obliged to your city in perpetuity: all of Christendom will praise the singular affection that you show to the blood and good servants of your kings, and posterity will forever celebrate an act so remarkable, so laudable and holy, worthy above all others in perpetual memory.

107. Cazauran notes that the Latin text refers to Cives Lutetiani, or “citizens of Paris”: DM, p. 279, n. 303.

Pierre de Bourdeille, Seigneur de Brantôme, “Second Discourse on the Queen, Mother of Our Last Kings, Catherine de Médicis,” Selections. From Book of Ladies, Poetry, and Funerary Writings1 (9) Vol. I, ch. i: “First Discourse on Ladies. On Queen Anne de Bretagne” Since I must speak of ladies, I do not wish to waste my time with ancient ones, with whom the histories are full. And it would be but to scribble on paper in vain, for there are enough of them written, and even the great Boccaccio has made a lovely book about them.2 I will content myself then with writing of a few singular ones, and principally of ours from France, and of those of our times or our fathers’, who have told us a little about them.3 (27) Vol. I, ch. ii: “Second Discourse on the Queen, Mother of our Late Kings, Catherine de Médicis” I have been astonished and marveled a hundred times over that, of the many good writers that we have seen in our time in France, none have been eager to put together a proper collection on the life and deeds of the queen mother, Catherine de Médicis, since she has produced ample cause for it and created many good works, if ever a queen did. As the Emperor Charles said to Paulo Giovio once, on his return from his triumphant voyage in La Goulette when he wished to make war on the French king: that he made but a provision on ink and paper, and would create plenty of good works for him to write about.4 And truly this queen has created such fine works that a good and zealous writer could have written an entire Iliad about them: but they are either lazy or ungrateful, for she was never stingy 1. Lead translator: Katherine Kong. Translation based on the French text in Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme, Recueil des Dames, poésies et tombeaux, ed. Etienne Vaucheret (Paris: Gallimard, 1991), 27–70. References to this text will hereafter be cited as “Discours.” Page numbers in parentheses are from this edition and refer to the starting page for each selection. Vaucheret also includes notes on many of the historical references in Brantôme’s text, some of which we include below. 2. The 1374 De claris mulieribus (On Famous Women). 3. By focusing on French women after invoking Boccaccio’s volume on diverse mythological and historical women, Brantôme marks his as a nationalist project, and Catherine’s inclusion in this collection of distinguished French women underscores her French maternal heritage and her assimilation at the French court. 4. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (1500–58), and Paolo Giovio (1483–1552), historian, humanist, and biographer of Pope Leo X. The reference is to Charles’s return from La Goulette (Tunis) after his defeat of the Turks, and his subsequent conflict with Henri II.

181

182 Second Discourse on the Queen toward writers and the learned. I could name several who enjoyed rich benefits from her, for which they are all the more accused of ingratitude. There was one, however, who wished to have a hand in writing of her, and indeed he wrote a small book that he titled the Life of Catherine; but it is a fraud and not worthy of being believed, since it is more full of lies than truth, as she herself said after seeing it; such falsehoods are apparent to everyone, and easily noted and cast aside.5 Also, he who wrote it wished her mortal harm, and was an enemy of her name, noble estate, life, honor, and disposition, which is why it should be rejected. As for me, I wish I knew how to speak well, or that I had a good pen, capable of exalting and praising her as she deserves. Nevertheless, such as it is, I will undertake to use it at my own risk. [On Catherine’s origins6] (28) This queen is descended on her father’s side from the race of the Medici, one of the most noble and illustrious houses not only of Italy but of Christendom, whatever one might say about it. She was a foreigner on this side, as the alliances of the great cannot commonly be made in their own kingdoms. Domestic alliances are often not the best, for foreign alliances are worth as much or more than near ones. The Medici house was almost always allied and confederated with the crown of France, whose fleurs de lys it still bears, which King Louis XI gave this house as a sign of alliance and perpetual confederation.7 On her mother’s side, she comes from one of the noblest houses of France, a true Frenchwoman in race, heart, and disposition, of this great house of Boulogne and county of Auvergne: such that it would be hard to say or judge in which of the two houses there have been more greatness and memorable deeds. This is what monsieur the archbishop of Bourges, of the house of Beaune, as great a learned man and worthy prelate as there might be in Christendom (although some call him a little light in faith, and hardly good for the scales of Saint Michael when he weighs good Christians on Judgment Day, as they say), said in the funeral oration he wrote for the queen at Blois:8

5. See the notes in our introduction on the Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportemens de Catherine de Médicis, Roine Mere. 6. Section headers in brackets are not part of the original text; they are provided here to help guide the reader. 7. Louis XI (1423–83; reigned 1461–83). For an account of the conferral of the heraldic symbol associated with the French monarchy on the Medici family, see “Discours,” p. 28, n. 2. 8. Renaud de Beaune (1527–1606), consecrated 1568. Brantôme takes a great deal of this biography from Beaune, at times almost word for word; see selections from the funeral oration in our Appendix.

Second Discourse on the Queen 183 At the time that the great Gaulish captain, Brennus, led his army through all Italy and Greece,9 there were with him in his troop two French noblemen, one named Felsinus, the other Bono. Seeing Brennus’s ill designs, after his fine conquests, to invade the temple of Delphi, to sully himself and his army with the sacrilege of this temple, both withdrew, and passed into Asia with their vessels and men; where they penetrated so far that they entered the land of the Medes, which is close to Lydia and Persia; where having made many conquests and obtained great victories, they finally withdrew. Passing through Italy, hoping to return to France, Felsinus stopped at a place where Florence is now situated, alongside the river Arno, that he recognized as beautiful and delightful, and of similar situation as one which had pleased him in the land of the Medes. And he built there a city that is today Florence. Likewise his companion Bono built the town of Bononia, called Bologna, both were neighboring towns: and, from then on, for the conquests and victories that this Felsinus had in the land of Media,10 he was called Medicus among his people, which surname has since remained in the family. Just as we read of Paulus, who was surnamed Macedonicus for having conquered Macedonia from Perseus, and Scipio, who was called Africanus for having done the same in Africa.11 I do not know from where monsieur de Beaune took this history. But it seems probable that, in front of the king and the assembly that was attending the queen’s funeral, he would not have wished to allege it without good authority. What a far cry this descent is from the modern one that is imagined and attributed without basis to the Medici family, as this lying book that I spoke of does for the queen. Then, the sieur de Beaune goes on to say: one reads in the chronicles that a certain Evorard of Medici, lord of Florence, along with many of his subjects, went to the aid of Charlemagne on the voyage and expedition he made in Italy against Didier, King of the Lombards. Having very courageously aided and helped him, he was confirmed and invested with the lordship of Florence. Several years later, a certain Anémond of Medici, also lord of Florence, took many of his subjects on a 9. In the third century BCE. 10. Ancient Iranian empire conquered by Cyrus the Great of Persia, 550 BCE. 11. Despite Brantôme’s averred interest in the present, he cannot write an encomium or simple “description” without referring to history, and specifically to origin stories. He—and Beaune—establish a specifically ancient and illustrious Medici lineage for Catherine, in contrast to her French lineage, which does not need explanation for a contemporary audience. Notice the layers of authority: Brantôme refers to a history that comes from a funeral oration, a state-sponsored piece of rhetoric par excellence, delivered by monsieur de Beaune, a “worthy prelate.”

184 Second Discourse on the Queen voyage from the Holy Land with Godefroy de Bouillon, where he died at the siege of Nicea in Asia. This greatness has always continued in this house until Florence was reduced to a republic by internecine wars in Italy between the emperors and the people. The illustrious personages of this house have manifested their value and greatness from time to time. We see this during these last centuries in the great Cosimo de Medici, who, with his arms, fleet, and vessels, terrified the Turks in the far East and on the Mediterranean Sea; so well that no one of his time, however great, surpassed him in might, valor, or wealth, as Raffaello Volterrano has written.12 The temples and the sacred places built by him, the hospitals founded by him even in Jerusalem, give ample proof of his piety and magnanimity. There were also Lorenzo de Medici, called the Great for his virtuous deeds; these two great and honorable popes Leo and Clement, so many cardinals and great personages of this name, and then this Grand Duke of Tuscany, Cosimo de Medici, a wise and attentive man if ever there were one.13 He maintained himself in his duchy that he invaded, which he found greatly troubled at the outset. In short, one could not take away anything from this great house of Medici that would leave it anything but illustrious, very noble, and great in all parts.14 As for the house of Boulogne and Auvergne, who can say anything but that it is very great, having come originally from the great Eustache de Boulogne, whose brother, Godefroy de Bouillon, bore arms and insignia with such a great number of princes, lords, knights, and Christian soldiers into Jerusalem itself on the sepulcher of our Saviour. By his sword and arms with the favor of God, he would have made himself king not only of Jerusalem, but of a great part of the East, to the confusion of Mahomet, Saracens, and Mahometans, such that he would have astonished the rest of the world by replanting Christianity in Asia, where it was at its lowest. As for the rest, this house was sought out in alliance by nearly all the kingdoms and great houses of Christendom, such as those of France, England, Scotland, Hungary, and Portugal. The kingdom of Portugal belonged to him by right, as I heard it said by the first président de Thou. The queen herself honored me by telling me this at Bordeaux, when she learned of the death of the late King Sebastian, and she was received to debate her right to the Portuguese throne at the last assembly of Estates held in Portugal before the death of the late 12. Cosimo de Medici (1389–1464), great-great-great grandfather of Catherine de Médicis, who increased the political and economic power of the Medici family and wielded enormous influence in Florence; Raffaello Volterrano (1451–1522), Italian humanist, historian, and theologian. 13. Lorenzo de Medici (1449–92), ruler of Florence, known as “Lorenzo the Magnificent”; Pope Leo X (1475–1521), born Giovanni de Medici, one of Lorenzo de Medici’s six children; Pope Clement VII (1478–1534), born Giuliano de Medici, the great-grandson of Cosimo de Medici, who arranged the marriage of Catherine de Médicis and Henri, duc d’Orléans and future King of France; and Cosimo I de Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1519–74). 14. Catherine is, notably, the first illustrious woman of this lineage.

Second Discourse on the Queen 185 King Cardinal.15 This was also why she armed a naval expedition under monsieur Strozzi, to make an incursion there, for the King of Spain had usurped it, and was only stopped for reasons which I will explain another time.16 I leave you then to reflect on whether this house of Boulogne was great. Indeed, I once heard Pope Pius IV say at the table, when he gave a dinner after his election for the cardinals of Ferrara and Guise, who were the sponsors of his elevation to the pontifical throne, that he held this house to be so great and so noble that he knew of none in France that surpassed it in ancientness, valor, or greatness.17 All this goes against the miserable detractors, who have said that this queen was a Florentine and of low origin: one can see the opposite is true. For the rest, she was not so poor that she did not bring in marriage to France lands that are worth today 120,000 livres such as the counties of Auvergne, Lauragais, the seigneuries of Levroux, Donzenac, Boussac, Corrèze, Hondecourt, and other lands, all from her mother’s inheritance. And moreover, for her dowry she had more than 200,000 écus or ducats, which would be worth today more than 400,000, with a great quantity of furniture, wealth, precious stones, and jewels, like the most beautiful and fattest pearls one has ever seen in such a great quantity, which she since gave to the Queen of Scotland her daughter-in-law, and which I have seen her wear.18 Beyond that, she brought with her a great many seigneuries, houses, properties, and claims that she had in Italy. Even more than all this, with her 15. This is the first of many assurances that something reported is “as I heard” (“ainsin que j’ai ouy dire”), demonstrating Brantôme’s careful attention to establishing oral authorities for his account. Sebastian I of Portugal (1554–78) ruled from 1557 to 1578. Catherine had hoped for a marriage between Sebastian and her daughter Marguerite; his lack of interest led her to arrange a marriage with Henri of Navarre instead: Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici (New York: Addison Wesley, 1998), 139. Henry of Portugal (1512–80), who was a cardinal before coming to the throne, succeeded Sebastian in 1578; upon his death in 1580, Philip II of Spain inherited the crown, against the hopes of Catherine de Médicis. “Discours,” p. 31, n.1. 16. Filippo di Piero Strozzi (1541–82), colonel general of the infantry. He was a Florentine political exile at the French court, and the son of Catherine’s cousin Piero Strozzi and Laudomia de Medici; Piero was appointed marshal of France; see “Discours,” p. 31 n. 2 and p. 22 n. 1., and Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme, Recueil des Dames, poésies et tombeaux, ed. Etienne Vaucheret (Paris: Gallimard, 1991), 1602. The King of Spain: Philip II (1527–98), whose third wife was Catherine’s daughter Elisabeth; he was one of three claimants to the Portuguese throne, and crowned Philip I of Portugal in 1581. Although Philip II signed a five-year truce with Henri II shortly after acceding to the throne, he refused to cede the see of Naples to Pope Paul IV; this led to a Franco-papal alliance against Spain, and ultimately war in Italy and Spain. See Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 47–48. 17. Pius IV (1499–1565), born Giovanni Angelo Medici, distantly related to Catherine’s family. See our introduction for more on Brântome’s method of exposition, relying on a carefully constructed play of authorities and in contrast to the tactics of the Discours merveilleux. 18. Queen of Scotland: Mary Stuart, married to François II.

186 Second Discourse on the Queen marriage, the affairs of France, which had been so shaken by the imprisonment of the king and his losses at Milan and Naples, began to stabilize.19 [Catherine’s marriage, and her reception in France and at the French court] (31) King François knew well enough to say it, that such a marriage had served his affairs well. This queen was given the device of the rainbow, which she wore as long as she was married, along with these Greek words: φῶς φέρει, ἠdὲ γαλὴνην which is as much as to say that, just as this fire and rainbow bring and signify beautiful weather after it rains, so this queen was a true emblem of clarity, serenity, and peaceful tranquility. The Greek is translated: lucem fert et serenitatem.20 Moreover, the Emperor21 dared not push his ambitious motto plus oultre, “ever further.” For although there were truces between him and King François, he always nursed his ambition with the intention of gaining from France what he could. He was greatly astonished by [François’s] alliance with the pope [Clement VII], knowing the latter to be cunning, courageous, and eager to avenge his imprisonment by the imperial army at the sack of Rome. And such a marriage so displeased him that I heard a truthful lady who was then at the court say that if he had not been married to the empress, he would have made an alliance with the pope, and married his niece, as much to be supported by such a great party, as because he feared that the pope would aid in his losing Naples, Milan, and Genoa, which he had promised King François when he gave him the money from his niece’s dowry along with her rings and jewels. Beyond all this, to make the dower worthy of such a marriage, he had promised him by an authentic document three pearls of inestimable value, of whose exorbitance the greatest kings were very envious and covetous, which were Naples, Milan, and Genoa. Indeed, one must not doubt that if the pope had lived out his natural life, he would have made the Emperor pay indeed, and would have made his imprisonment cost him dearly, to aggrandize his niece and the kingdom to which she was married. But he died very young, and all this profit still remains to be had.

19. The French were driven out of Milan in 1521. François Ier was defeated and taken prisoner at the Battle of Pavia in 1525, and released in 1526; French forces unsuccessfully laid siege to Naples in 1528. See Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 9–10. 20. Vaucheret translates this as “It brings light and serenity.” As the subject in Latin is ambiguous, it could just as easily refer to Catherine: “she brings light and serenity.” 21. Charles V.

Second Discourse on the Queen 187 Here then is our queen, having lost her mother Madeleine de Boulogne, and her father, Lorenzo de Medici, Duke of Urbino, at a young age,22 married afterward by her good uncle in our France, where she was brought by sea to Marseille in great triumph, and her wedding held with great pomp, at the age of fourteen. She was so loved by the king her father-in-law, and by King Henri her husband that, although ten years had passed without her producing an heir, and there were many people who urged the king and monsieur the dauphin her husband to repudiate her, for there was need of an heir in France, never did either one or the other consent to it, so much did they love her. After these ten years, as is the way with women of the Medici race who are late to conceive, she began by producing the little King François II, about whom I heard a tale: when he was born, there was a lady of the court who was companionable and made people laugh easily, who came to present a written request to monsieur the dauphin, in which she asked that he give her the abbey of St. Victor, which he had emptied out. He was very surprised by this, as they said at the court that King François did not care as much for madame the dauphine as he did for monsieur the dauphin because they did not have children: they said that my lord the dauphin had a twisted member, which was not very straight, and because of this the seed did not go straight into the womb, which greatly impeded conception. But, after this infant was born, they said that King François no longer preferred monsieur the dauphin, and that the king had it said that he did not have a twisted member. After this lady explained her request to monsieur the dauphin, everyone began to laugh, and he said that he had emptied the abbey of St. Victor, alluding with one word to another, which I leave the reader to imagine without further explanation.23 Then the Queen of Spain was born,24 and after this we saw follow a beautiful and illustrious lineage; some children were lost as soon as they were born, through the greatest misfortune. This made the king her husband love her more, although he loved her well and in such a way that he, who was of an amorous disposition and greatly enjoyed making love and changing partners, said often that, of all the women in the world, there was only the queen his wife for this, and he did not know any other of her worth. He was right to say it, for she was a beautiful and very agreeable princess.

22. Madeleine de la Tour d’Auvergne (1498–1519); Lorenzo de Medici (1492–1519), Duke of Urbino, recognized as head of the Florentine republic. See Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 6. 23. Victor is a homophone for “vit tord,” or “twisted member.” Thanks to George Hoffman for pointing out the pun. 24. Elisabeth of Valois, married to Philip II of Spain in 1559.

188 Second Discourse on the Queen [Description of Catherine’s physical beauty, athleticism, interest in the arts, activities, and character] (33) She was of a very beautiful and rich stature, of great majesty, yet very sweet when necessary, of beautiful appearance, good grace, her face beautiful and agreeable, a very beautiful, white, and full bosom, a very white body also, and beautiful flesh, and her skin clear, as I have heard said by several of her ladies. She had a very rich fullness of form, her legs and thighs were very beautiful, as I have also heard said by her ladies, and she took great pleasure in dressing them in fine stockings and shoes, and in seeing the stockings laid smoothly and well. For the rest, she had the loveliest hand that was ever seen, I believe. The poets of the past praised Aurora for having beautiful hands and fingers, but I think that the queen would have eclipsed her in all this, and she always protected and took care of her hands until her death. The king her son, Henri III, inherited from her much of this beauty of the hands. Moreover, she always dressed very well and elegantly, and always had some fine and new invention. In brief, she had many advantages to make herself greatly loved. About which I recall that one day she had gone to see a painter at Lyon, who was called Corneille, who had painted in a great room all the great lords, princes, nobles, and great queens, princesses, ladies, and maids of the French court. When we were in this room with these paintings, we saw there this queen painted very well in her beauty and perfection, dressed in the French style wearing a chaperon with her great pearls, and a dress with great sleeves of silver cloth furred with lynx.25 Everything was so well represented and true to life with her beautiful face and her three lovely daughters beside her that there lacked only her speech. She took great pleasure at such a sight, as did the whole company who was there, amusing themselves in contemplating, admiring, and praising her beauty above all: she herself was carried away in contemplation such that she was unable to take her eyes off of it, until monsieur de Nemours came to say to her: “Madame, I find you very well portrayed there, and there is nothing more to say about it. It seems to me that your daughters bring you great honor; for they do not precede you at all, and do not surpass you.”26 She responded to him: “My cousin, I believe that you recall well the time, age, and dress of this painting: you can judge better than any one of this company, you who have seen me so, if I was esteemed as you say, and if I have been as I am there.” There was then not a single one in the group who did not praise and esteem infinitely this beauty, and did not say that the mother was worthy of the daughters, and the daughters worthy of the mother. This beauty 25. Vaucheret identifies a chaperon as a hat encircled with pearls and a veil that falls to the shoulders: “Discours,” p. 34, n. H. 26. Jacques de Savoie, duc de Nemours (1531–85), Catholic military leader in the French Wars of Religion. “Discours,” p. 34, n. 2.

Second Discourse on the Queen 189 endured, both when she was married and widowed, nearly until her death; not because she was as fresh as in her most blooming years, but rather because she was well preserved and very desirable and agreeable. For the rest, she was very agreeable and had a gay disposition, and loved all seemly exercises, like dancing, at which she had very beautiful grace and majesty. She loved hunting a great deal as well, about which I heard a tale from a great lady of the court at the time: King François, who put together a group of ladies of the court called the petite bande, which included the loveliest, most agreeable and more among his most favorite, often slipped away from the court and went to other houses to hunt stag and pass the time. He stayed there sometimes eight days, ten days, sometimes more, sometimes less, just as he pleased, and as the mood took him. Our queen, who was then madame the dauphine, seeing such parties take place without her, especially as mesdames her sisters-in-law were there while she stayed at home, asked the king to bring her always with him, and that he do her the honor of allowing her to stay ever by his side. They said that she, who was always shrewd and clever, did this as much to see the actions of the king and to learn secrets from him and hear and learn all things, as for the hunt, or more. King François was so agreeable to such a request, seeing the goodwill that he saw in her to love his company, that he granted it very willingly. Although he already loved her naturally, he loved her still more for it, and enjoyed giving her the pleasure of the hunt, during which she never left the king, and always followed him at a gallop. She was very good on horseback and bold, and sat her horse very elegantly, having been the first to place her leg over the pommel, where it was much more graceful and attractive and visible than on the planchette.27 She always greatly loved riding until she was sixty or older, when weakness deprived her of it. This was a great dissatisfaction, for riding and taking long rides and going fast was one of her great pleasures, even though it caused her to fall often with great harm to her body. She was hurt several times this way, to the point of fracturing a leg and wounding her head, for which it was necessary that she undergo surgery. When she was widowed and had the care of the king and the kingdom, she always accompanied the king and brought him with her, along with all her children; when the king her husband was alive, she usually went with him to stag hunts and other hunts. If he played palle-mail, she watched him play it most often, and played it herself.28 She watched him play la paulme.29 She also loved to draw the crossbow

27. A small footrest attached to a woman’s saddle; Catherine is alleged to have modified the traditional woman’s sidesaddle in order to ride facing forward. “Discours,” p. 50, n. 1. 28. A croquet precursor: “parmaille” (from the Italian palamaglio), a game analogous to pall-mall, consisting of pushing a boxwood ball with a mallet. “Discours,” p. 36, n. F. 29. Jeu de paume, an indoor precursor of tennis.

190 Second Discourse on the Queen à jalet, and she shot very well.30 When she went for a walk she always had her crossbow brought along; and when she saw a good shot, she took it. She was always inventing new dances or pretty ballets. When the weather was bad, she came up with games and passed the time with others, being very familiar and friendly, but also very serious and austere when necessary. She very much loved seeing comedies and tragedies, but since Sophonisba, composed by monsieur de Saint-Gelais and very well performed by mesdames her daughters and their ladies and maids and gentlemen of her court, and which was acted at Blois at the weddings of monsieur de Cypierre and of the marquis d’Albeuf, she was of the opinion that it brought misfortune to the affairs of the kingdom, which indeed came to pass.31 She no longer had it performed, but rather many comedies and tragi-comedies, and even those of Zani and Panthalon, and took great pleasure in them, laughing at them to her heart’s content, like any other, for she laughed freely.32 By nature she was cheerful, loved to joke, spoke with great wit, and knew well when to cast her stone and her word, and when to cast blame. She spent her time after lunch in attending to her silk work, at which she was as perfect as possible. In short, this queen loved and gave herself to all seemly activities, and there was not one worthy of her and of her sex that she did not wish to know and practice. That is what I can say to speak briefly and flee prolixity, of the beauty of her person and her activities. [Description of Catherine’s character and the king’s trust in her] (37) When she called someone “my friend,” it was because she found him silly, or was angry. She had an attendant named monsieur de Boyfevrier, who had a quick wit; when she called him “my friend,” he replied “Ha! Madame, I would love better that you called me your enemy, for it is as much to say that I am a fool, or that you are angry with me, according to what I have known of your ways for some time.”33 As for her mind, it was very great and very admirable, as was shown in so many fine and remarkable acts by which her life is dignified forever. The king 30. A stone-bow that shoots pebbles, stones, or pellets. 31. Sophonisbe, a translation of Gian Giorgio Trissino’s 1515 play Sophonisba, performed before Catherine in 1556 at Blois. Catherine commissioned the translation by Mellin de Saint-Gelais (1491– 1558), French poet and proponent of Italianism. “Discours,” p. 36, n. 2. 32. Conventional figures of commedia dell’arte; see “Discours,” p. 36, n. 3, for a discussion of how Catherine brought a Venetian troupe to France that was accused of immorality, then reinstated. 33. Vaucheret describes him as a “gentilhomme servant de Catherine de Médicis,” “Discours,” 1555; P. Louis Lainé identifies a “Bois-Février” as the queen’s “panetier,” that is, the officer charged with the distribution of bread in the royal household; Archives généaolgiques et historiques de la noblesse de France, vol. 8 (Paris: Lainé, 1843), 34; Dictionnaire de l’Académie française (6th ed., 1835).

Second Discourse on the Queen 191 her husband and his council so esteemed her that, when the king campaigned in Germany, outside of his kingdom, he established her and appointed her regent and gouvernante of all his kingdom during his absence, through a declaration solemnly made before the full Parlement of Paris.34 And in this charge she conducted herself so wisely, that there was no disturbance, disagreement, or change in this state because of the king’s absence. On the contrary, she attended so well to matters of state that the king was assisted with money, means, and men, and all other sorts of aid, that served him very well on his return, and even in his conquest of towns in the duchy of Luxembourg, like Yvoy, Montmédy, Damvillers, Chimay, and others. I leave you then to decide if he who wrote this pretty life that I mentioned, spoke ill in saying that the king her husband had not wished her to put her nose in the affairs of his state. By making her regent in his absence, was this not ample occasion for her to have full knowledge of them, as she did in the absence of the king her husband during all the trips that he made every year to go to his armies? What did she do after the battle of Saint-Laurent, when the state was in upheaval, after the king had left for Compiègne to set up a new army?35 She so espoused matters that she inspired and roused the bourgeois of Paris to give prompt aid to their king, which came most opportunely, as regards both money and other things necessary for war.36 [Henri’s death, Catherine’s mourning and first regency; Catherine’s efforts at conciliation; accusations against her role in the eruption of civil wars] (38) When the king her husband was wounded, those who were present at the time and who saw it happen could not be unaware of the great concern she had for his recovery, the sleepless vigils she kept by his side, the great prayers with which she importuned God incessantly, the supplications and church visitations that

34. On March 25, 1552. Vaucheret points out that this appointment was not as simple as Brantôme presents it: the keeper of the seals, Jean Bertrand, with whom Catherine was expected to share presidency of the royal council, was a “creature of Diane de Poitiers,” and certain decisions had to be made in concert with council members and with the admiral, Claude d’Annebault; see “Discours,” p. 37, n. 2; Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 43–44, 60; and Guillaume Ribier, Lettres et mémoires d’estat des roys, princes, ambassadeurs et autres ministres sous les règnes de François Ier, Henri II et François II, vol. 2 (Paris: François Clouzier, 1666), 387–89. 35. Compiègne: city in northern France from which Henri II wrote to Catherine seeking Parisian assistance in funding his forces against Philip II. See Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 48–49. 36. “[E]pousa”: this is not an accidental verb; Catherine’s state activity is couched in the marital register, underscoring that it was her duty as regent and also her duty as wife.

192 Second Discourse on the Queen she made, and the messengers she sent everywhere in search of doctors and surgeons.37 But when his hour had come, and when he passed from this world into the other, she made such lamentations and shed such tears, that they have never stopped. For his memory, and when one spoke of him, as long as she lived she always cried a tear from the depths of her eyes, for which she took the following device, which was appropriate and fitting to her mourning and tears: a mountain of quicklime, on which drops of water from the sky fell abundantly. It had these words in Latin: Ardorem extincta testantur vivere flamma, or, “the drops of water and tears show well their ardor, although the flame may be extinguished,” taking its allegory from the nature of quicklime, which when exposed to water burns strangely, and shows its heat despite its lack of flame. In this way our queen showed her ardor and her affection by her tears, although the flame, which was the king her husband, was extinguished, which was to say that, although he was dead, she showed by her tears that she could not forget him, and that she loved him still. A similar device was formerly worn by madame Valentine de Milan, duchesse d’Orléans, after the death of her husband who was killed in Paris, for whom she grieved so greatly that for all the solace and comfort in her lamentations, she took a watering can for her device, on the upper part of which was an “S” as a sign (as they say) that alone, she often worried and sighed.38 Around the watering can were written these words: Nothing is mine any longer. Nothing matters any more to me.39 One still sees this device in the church of the Franciscans at Blois, in the chapel. The good King René of Sicily, after losing his wife Isabeau, duchesse de Lorraine, mourned so greatly that he could never again rejoice.40 When his closest friends and favorites remonstrated with him to seek consolation, he brought them to his cabinet and showed them, painted in his own hand (for he was an excellent 37. This was a mortal injury: the king was wounded by a splintered lance during wedding festivities for his daughter, Elisabeth de Valois, and died of his injury days later. 38. Valentina Visconti, duchesse d’Orléans (1336–1402); great-grandmother of François Ier, from whom he inherited a claim to the duchy of Milan. See Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 1. In French, the “s” is featured in the alliterative description of the watering can: “seulle souvant se soucioit et souspiroit.” See “Discours,” 38–39. Anna Klosowska discusses the range of possible meanings for Valentina’s “chantepleure”: “Tearsong: Valentina Visconti’s Inverted Stoicism,” Glossator 5 (2011), 173 and 185. 39. The French verse is prettily and chiastically economical: “Rien ne m’est plus,/Plus ne m’est rien.” See “Discours,” 39. 40. More famously known as René of Anjou (1409–80), amateur painter and author of, among other works, the allegorical Livre du cuer d’amours espris.

Second Discourse on the Queen 193 painter), a Turkish bow whose string was broken and sundered, and underneath which was written: Arco per lentare piaga non sana.41 Then he said to them: “My friends, by this painting I respond to all your concerns: for, just as by unstringing a bow, or breaking or undoing the string, the wound that it made with its arrow is not any sooner healed, the life of my dear spouse was put out and broken by death, but the wound of loyal love has not healed, which wounded my heart while she was alive.” In many places in Angers one sees pictures of these Turkish bows with broken strings, and underneath these words: Arco per lentare. They are seen in particular among the Franciscans, in the chapel of St. Bernardin that he had built: and he took this device after the death of his wife, for in his lifetime he bore a different one. Now, our queen, around her device which I just described, had placed trophies of broken mirrors, broken fans and plumes, shattered necklaces, and her jewels and pearls scattered on the ground, the strands all in pieces; all as a sign of leaving all worldly enjoyments because her husband was dead, for which she could never end her mourning. And without the grace of God and the constancy with which he gifted her, she would have succumbed to this great sadness and anguish. Also, she saw that her very young children and France had great need of her, as we have since seen by experience; for, like a Semiramis or another Athalia, she safeguarded, defended, and protected her children and their kingdom from several actions that were planned against them in their early years, with such prudence and industry that the whole world found her admirable.42 And as the regent of this kingdom after the death of King François her son, during the minority of our king by the ordinance of the Estates General of Orléans, she overruled the King of Navarre, who, as first prince of the blood, wished to be regent in her place and govern all.43 But she won over these Estates so well and so adroitly that, if the King of Navarre had gone further, she would have had him declared attainted of the crime of lèse-majesté.44 And it is possible that she would have done it had it not been for madame de Montpensier, who held too much sway over her, because 41. “Loosening the bow does not heal the wound.” 42. Both were ancient queens and widows: Semiramis, Assyrian and Babylonian queen, was regent during the minority of her son and is represented in various traditions as a harlot and murderess; Athalia, a roughly contemporary queen of Judah who tried to have all royal descendants murdered, and was deposed and executed by her grandson. Brantôme presumably wishes his readers to focus on the salutary aspects of these queens’ legends, but their more notorious aspects might seem difficult to overlook, and make them surprising points of comparison for Catherine. Semiramis and Athalia are both referred to by Beaune; as pointed out in an earlier footnote, Brantôme takes a great deal of his text from Beaune’s funeral oration, selections of which are included in the Appendix. 43. Antoine de Bourbon (1518–62), father of Henri de Navarre. He was appointed lieutenant-general alongside Catherine de Médicis during the minority of Charles IX. 44. High treason.

194 Second Discourse on the Queen of the conspiracies that, supposedly, he made monsieur the prince de Condé lead against the state; so this king had to content himself with being under her. This was one of the subtle and skillful maneuvers she accomplished at the beginning.45 After this, she knew how to maintain her position and authority so imperiously that no one dared contradict it, however great and desirous of discord he might be, until three full months later, when the court was at Fontainebleau. The King of Navarre, who wished to show his pride, was discontented that monsieur de Guise had himself brought the keys to the king’s lodging, and kept them every night in his room like a grand master, for that was one of his responsibilities, and none dared to leave without his authorization.46 This greatly angered the King of Navarre, who wished to keep the keys himself; but when he was refused he was so discontented and rebelled in such a way that one morning he came to take leave of the king and queen to leave the court, and took with him all the princes of the blood that he had won over, along with monsieur the constable and his children and nephews. The queen, who hardly expected this, was astonished at first, and tried everything she could to undo this plan, and gave good hope to the King of Navarre that if he waited, he would one day be happy. However, she was unable with her smooth words to dissuade the king from being set on leaving. Then the queen considered this subtle point: she sent an order to monsieur the constable, as the principal, first, and oldest officer of the crown, to stay close to the king his master, as his duty and office commanded him, and not leave him. When monsieur the constable, who was wise and sensible, very zealous concerning his master, and careful of his greatness and honor, considered his duty and the order that was made him, he went to find and present himself to the king, ready to fulfill his office, duty, and responsibility, and not move from his side. This greatly astonished the King of Navarre, who was about to mount his horse, and had not expected monsieur the constable to come to remind him of his orders and his office, and persuade him not to move or leave. Or to tell him that he could go without him, as he was not able to follow him because of his honor and duty: such that he went to find the king and queen at the incitement of monsieur the constable. After conferring with their majesties, the King of Navarre’s voyage was called off, 45. Jacqueline de Montpensier (née de Longwy; ca. 1520–61), Huguenot defender at Catherine’s court. See J. H. M. Salmon, Society in Crisis: France in the Sixteenth Century (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975), 129. Louis de Bourbon, prince de Condé (1530–69), brother of Antoine de Bourbon and Charles, future cardinal de Bourbon. 46. François de Lorraine (1519–63), duc de Guise as of 1550, and head of the Guise clan, whose power reached an apex during the reign of François II. The power that the staunchly Catholic Guises held at the courts of Henri II and François II inspired a Huguenot attempt to overthrow the Guises and François II, known as the Amboise conspiracy. Guise was ultimately assassinated by Poltrot de Méré, a Huguenot noble, while laying siege to Orléans. The Guises accused the admiral, Gaspard de Coligny, who denied involvement; Catherine was also blamed for his death. See Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 45, 91. Grand-maistre or grand master: head steward of the king’s household.

Second Discourse on the Queen 195 and his mules which had already arrived in Melun were sent for and called back. And everything was appeased to the satisfaction of the King of Navarre. Not that monsieur de Guise was diminished at all in his office, nor did he forgo any of his honor, for he kept his prerogatives and that which belonged to him without being shaken by anything, although he was not the stronger. Being the man of the world in these things who was least surprised, he knew very well to play the part and maintain his rank and protect what he had. It must not be doubted, as everyone believed, that if the queen had not conceived of this ruse with regard to monsieur the constable, this entire group would have gone to Paris to stir things up; a thing hardly valued. Great praise is due to the queen for this subtlety. I know it, I was there, and some believed that this was not her idea, but rather that of the cardinal de Tournon, sage and sensible prelate; but it is a lie, for, seasoned hand of prudence and judgment that he was, by my faith, the queen knew more of ruses than him and the entire king’s council together.47 For, quite often, when the council was in the wrong, she corrected it and set it on the right path, as I could show by many examples; but it will be enough that I recount this one, which is recent, and she herself honored me by relating it to me. It is as follows: When she came to Guyenne and Cognac not long ago to reconcile the Huguenot princes and those of the League, and to bring peace to the kingdom, which she saw going to ruin by such divisions, she decided to involve herself in this peace, first, by having a truce proclaimed, which made the King of Navarre and the prince de Condé very unhappy and mutinous, all the more since (they said) this proclamation bore them great prejudice because of their foreign mercenaries, who, after hearing of it, might well cool toward their voyage or delay it; they believed that the queen had made this peace for these reasons.48 They said and resolved expressly not to see the queen, nor deal with her, unless the truce were denounced. She found her council, which she kept close to her at the time, most ridiculous and of little honor, even though it was made up of good minds, for they found it nearly impossible to find a way to rescind the truce. The queen said to them: “Truly, you are at a loss for finding a solution. Can you not think of anything else for this? There is but one way. You have at Maillezais the regiments 47. Cardinal François de Tournon (1489–1562), sent by François Ier to Rome to negotiate sending Catherine to the French court until she was of age to marry François’s son Henri, duc d’Orléans. See Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 13. Vaucheret also gives biographical information on Tournon: “Discours,” p. 41, n. 2. 48. Guyenne and Cognac were Calvinist and Huguenot strongholds in southwestern France, respectively. Reformists had taken Maillezais (Vendée) at the end of November 1586; it was taken by royalists and Catholic Leaguers by March 20, 1587. See “Discours,” p. 42, n. 2. While for the most part Brantôme follows a roughly chronological exposition, for the sake of offering illustrative examples here he moves around: he starts with Henri II’s death in 1559, jumps forward here to the late 1580s, and in the next paragraph returns to the early 1560s in discussing the formation of the Triumvirate.

196 Second Discourse on the Queen of Neufvy and Sorlu, all Huguenots. Send from here, the city of Niort, as many harquebuses as you can, and cut them to pieces for me: and there straightaway you have the truce denounced and undone, without taking further pains.” It was immediately executed as she ordered it, and the harquebuses were raised and brought under the conduct of Captain L’Estelle.49 They forced their fort and barricades so well that they were all defeated. Sorlu, who was a valiant man, was killed, and Neufvy was taken, with many others dead, and all their flags taken as well and brought to Niort to the queen. She exercised her customary turn of clemency on their behalf, pardoned them all and sent them back with their standards and their very flags, which was hardly ever seen for flags, and a rare thing. But she wished to deal this extremely rare blow, she told me, to the princes, who now knew well that they were dealing with a very capable princess, and that it was not for her to address such a mockery as denouncing a truce by means of the very trumpet that proclaimed it. Thinking that they had shamed her, she fell on them, and by imprisoning them made them see that it was not for them to make her despair by demanding unreasonable and unseemly things, since it was in her power to do them harm. And so! That is how this queen knew to give and teach a lesson to those of her council. I could give many other examples, but I have to address other points, the first of which is this: to respond to some whom I have often heard say that she had incited the first taking up of arms, or was the cause of our civil wars. Whoever wishes to see the source of this allegation will not believe it. The Triumvirate had been created with the King of Navarre at its head. She saw the plots that were being prepared and the change made by the King of Navarre, who for a long time had been such a strongly reformed Huguenot but now made himself Catholic. Because of this change she feared harm might befall the king [Charles IX], the kingdom, and her person, and she reflected and considered carefully what so many plots, meetings, and discussions taking place in secret might lead to.50 And when she was unable to get to the bottom of the matter (as they say), she decided one day, when the entire privy council was meeting in the King of Navarre’s room, to go to the room above his, and by means of a pipe that was slid subtly along the length of the tapestry, heard all their plans, without being perceived. Among others, she heard about one 49. Louis de Brunet, seigneur de Lestelle, later counselor and chamberlain of the King of Navarre. See “Discours,” p. 42, n. 5. 50. Dissatisfied with Catherine’s conciliatory position toward the Huguenots, François de Guise, the maréchal de Saint-André, and Anne de Montmorency formed an alliance in 1561 known as the “Triumvirate” to defend the Catholic faith and “destroy Protestantism throughout Europe”; its immediate goal was to win over Antoine de Bourbon, King of Navarre, from the Huguenots. See Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 73–75. See “Discours,” p. 43, n. 1, on Catherine’s practice of toleration, and Catholic alarm at the conferral of the position of lieutenant-general upon the Protestant Antoine de Bourbon. Brantôme’s assessment that Navarre “s’est rendu catholique” underscores that his conversion was viewed as a political expedient by contemporaries.

Second Discourse on the Queen 197 that was very terrible and bitter to her, for the maréchal de Saint-André, one of the Triumvirate, expressed the opinion that the queen should be thrown in a sack into the water, and that otherwise they could never advance their plans.51 But the late monsieur de Guise, who was completely good and generous, said that she must not be, and that it was a thing too unjust to have the wife and mother of their kings die so miserably.52 He completely opposed it, for which the queen has always loved him, and showed it well to his children after his death, giving them all his offices. I leave you to consider what a sentence this was for this queen, and whether she had reason to fear, after she heard this with her own ears, although she was reassured about monsieur de Guise. But, according to what I heard from one of her intimates, she feared that they might strike the blow without the seal of monsieur de Guise, as she had reason to, for, in such a detestable deed, one must always be wary of an honest man, and never let him know. It was then up to her to see to her safety, and employ those whom she saw already in arms, and beseech them to take pity on the mother and her children.53 This is the entire reason she is the cause of the civil war. For she never wished to go to Orléans with the others, nor give them the king and her children, as she could have done.54 She felt quite at ease that, in the middle of the disorder and the rumors that it all would come to arms, she was safe along with the king her son and her children (as was right). However, she requested and made them promise that they would set down their arms whenever she commanded them to; which nevertheless they did not do when the time came, no matter the comings and goings she made toward them, nor the pains she took and the great heat she endured at Talcy to persuade them to attend to the peace that she had already made good and sure for all of France, had they but heeded it.55 This fire, and so many others that we have seen lit from the remains of the first embers, would have been extinguished forever in France if they had wished to believe it. I know what I saw her say with tears in her eyes, and with what zeal she proceeded. This, then, is the reason for which one cannot blame her for the first spark of civil war, any more than for the second, which was the day of Meaux, for then 51. Jacques D’Albon, sieur de Saint-André (born between 1505 and 1513, died 1562). 52. François de Guise. 53. After the massacre at Wassy on March 1, 1562, Catherine, fearing trouble in Paris, entrusted the government of the city to the cardinal de Bourbon, brother of Condé and of the King of Navarre. The cardinal ordered Guise and Condé to leave the capital. Guise refused. Condé withdrew with his troops; Catherine addressed four letters to him (March 16–26) expressing her gratitude and confidence that he would help her save the kingdom. See Catherine’s letters to Condé in this volume. On March 31, the triumvirs constrained the queen and her sons to return to Paris as prisoners. See “Discours,” p. 44, n. 1. 54. Vaucheret identifies these “others” as simply “the Huguenots”: see “Discours,” p. 44, n. G. 55. See Vaucheret for an account of the talks at Talcy in June 1562, which took place amid increasing escalation of arms in France. “Discours,” p. 44, n. 2.

198 Second Discourse on the Queen she did not dream of anything but hunting, or giving pleasure to the king at his lovely house at Monceaux56 … [Accusations concerning Catherine’s role in the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, and her “Frenchness.” Her attitude toward the French nobility57] (48) They have vigorously blamed her for the Massacre of Paris: this is a lettre close for me, for at the time I was at our embarkment at Brouage.58 But I have indeed heard tell that she was not its originator. There are three or four others, whom I could indeed name, who were more ardent than she and strongly pushed her on it, making her believe that, because of the threats made because of the wounding of monsieur the admiral, they would kill the king, and her and her children, and her entire court, or that they would be fighting worse than ever.59 In which certainly those of the religion60 were truly in the wrong to make such threats as they are said to have done; for they made matters worse for poor monsieur the admiral, and procured his death. If they had kept quiet and not sounded the word, and left monsieur the admiral to heal, he would have left Paris afterward at his ease, and there would have been nothing more. Monsieur de la Noue was indeed of this opinion, and, he, monsieur Strozzi, and I have discussed it. I know that he never approved of these bravados, audacities, and threats that were made, at the very court of his king and his city of Paris; and he greatly blamed monsieur de Téligny, his brother-in-law, who was among the incensed, calling him and his companions true fools and ill-advised.61 Monsieur de Coligny the admiral never used these words, as I heard from oth56. Brantôme refers to the “Surprise of Meaux”: in September 1567, following several months of escalation of tensions with Huguenots, the court was assembled at Monceaux, close to Meaux; armed Huguenot occupation of nearby Rozay-en-Brie, headed by Condé and Coligny, resulted in the court fleeing under the protection of Swiss guards to Meaux and then Paris. The Huguenots pursued and blockaded the city. See “Discours,” p. 44, n. 3, and Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 111–17. 57. See our introduction for more on Brantôme’s defensive tone as a response to the accusations of the Discours merveilleux. 58. The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres. A lettre close was a sealed letter, often taken to mean that it contained an order of the king, or a warrant or arrest order; in this case, Brantôme likely means—perhaps expediently—that he does not know what happened, as he was not there. In 1571, preparations were underway for an expedition to Peru from Brouage, but were called off after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres. See “Discours,” p. 48, n. 2. 59. The admiral Gaspard de Coligny; he was wounded, then killed just prior to the killings that have become known as the St. Barthlomew’s Day massacres. 60. “Of the religion” was a phrase frequently used to refer to the Huguenots. 61. “Discours,” p. 48, n. 5. François de la Noue (1531–91), Huguenot captain. His brother-in-law, Charles de Téligny (1535–72), was one of the most solid supporters of the Huguenot cause; he married Gaspard de Coligny’s daughter in 1571, and was killed in the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres.

Second Discourse on the Queen 199 ers, at least not out loud. I am not saying that, in secret and in private with his intimates, he did not speak more openly about it. This, and not the queen, is the cause of monsieur the admiral’s death and the massacre of his people, as I heard from some who know it well, although there were several from whom one could not remove the opinion that this spindle was long and carefully threaded and this plan brooded over. It is a lie: those least impassioned by these events think so too. The most obstinate and impassioned believe otherwise; and often we give credit to kings and great princes for the arrival of events, and when they occur, we say they are prudent and provident and know well how to dissimulate, when they knew no more about them than a little bird. To return again to our queen, her enemies accused her of not being a good Frenchwoman.62 God knows with what passion I saw her push for chasing the English out of Havre de Grace,63 what she said about it to monsieur the prince, how she had him go with many gentlemen of his party and the crown companies of monsieur d’Andelot64 and other Huguenots. I saw how she herself in person led the army, usually seated on a horse like a second beautiful Queen Marfisa,65 exposing herself to harquebus and cannon shots like one of her captains, always seeing to the making of the batteries,66 saying that she would never be at ease until she had taken this town and chased these English from France, hating worse than poison those who had sold it to them. And she did so much that finally she made it French. When Rouen was besieged, I saw her in the greatest anger in the world when she saw help come in for the English, that entered by the French galley which had been taken a year before. She feared that this place, if it failed to be taken by us, might come under the domination of the English.67 She pushed strongly at the wheel (as they say) to take it; and did not fail every day to come to the fort of St. Catherine to hold council and see to the making of the battery. How often have I Monsieur Strozzi: Filippo di Piero Strozzi (1541–82), son of Catherine’s cousin, Piero Strozzi; see note 16 above. 62. “[S]es ennemis luy ont mis à sus qu’elle n’estoit pas bonne françoise”: see “Discours,” 49. 63. The treaty of Hampton Court promised Havre de Grâce (now Le Havre) to Elizabeth I in exchange for English soldiers and funds to support the Huguenots; see “Discours,” p. 49, n. 2. 64. François d’Andelot de Coligny (1521–69); younger brother of the admiral de Coligny, he was a Protestant colonel-general in the French civil wars. 65. Heroine of Ludovico Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso. 66. Fortified places for heavy guns. 67. Northern French city that had a significant Protestant population. It was seized by Huguenots in 1562, and successfully besieged by royal forces later that year after an initial attempt to overtake it by the duc d’Aumale. The renewed siege efforts were led by François de Guise; the city’s fort of SainteCatherine was a point of attack as well as a vantage point from which Catherine conferred with captains and observed siege efforts. See Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 89–90, and the “Discours,” p. 49, n. 4.

200 Second Discourse on the Queen seen her passing by the sunken path of St. Catherine! The cannon and harquebus shots rained down around her, and she cared little. Those who were there at the time saw her as well as I. There are still today many ladies her maids who accompanied her, whom the activity did not please greatly; I know it and saw them there. And when monsieur the constable and monsieur de Guise68 remonstrated with her that some harm would come to her because of it, she only laughed and said, why would she spare herself more than they, since she had courage as good as theirs, though not the strength that her sex denied her; for she endured pain very well, whether on foot or on horseback. And I think that for a long time since there has not been a queen nor princess better on a horse, who sat with better grace; not one who seemed like a masculine lady, like a fantastical Amazon in form and style, but a fine princess, beautiful, agreeable, and gentle. They said that she was very Spanish. Certainly, as long as her daughter lived, she loved Spain; but after she died it was discovered, at least by some, whether she had occasion to love it, both the land and the nation. It is indeed true that she was always very prudent on that point. She always wished to treat the King of Spain69 as her own offspring, so that he might better treat her beautiful and good daughter, as is the custom of good mothers, and also so that he would not cause trouble for us in France, nor make war upon us, according to his proud heart and natural ambition. Others also wished to say that she hardly loved the nobility of France and wished very much to spill its blood.70 On this point I refer to so many peace treaties made by her, for how much she spared this blood. Moreover, let consideration be paid to this: as long as she was regent and her children in their minority, whether we saw at the court as many quarrels and duels as we have seen since. For she never wished to see them, and always expressly forbade them at court, and punished those who transgressed. Since then, from the time that the quarrels and duels began and became common, I have often seen her stay uncompromising and alone at court, when the king was absent for a few days. Never would she permit a duel, and she made swift commandments to the captains of the guards to make the prohibitions, and to the marshals and captains to comply with them. Also, to tell the truth, she was feared more than the king in this, for she knew well how to speak to the disobedient and unruly, and admonished them terribly. I recall that one time, when the king was at the baths of Bourbon, my late cousin La Châtaigneraie had a quarrel with Pardaillan.71 She had him sought by all 68. Anne de Montmorency and François de Lorraine, respectively. 69. Philip II of Spain. 70. The reference appears to be to the Discours merveilleux, which accused Catherine of seeking to eliminate the French nobility. 71. Charles II de Vivonne, baron de La Châtaigneraie et d’Ardelay, son of Isabeau Chabot d’Aspremont and Charles de Vivonne, Brântome’s uncle; Hector de Pardaillan, sieur de Montespan et de Gondrin

Second Discourse on the Queen 201 to forbid him from fighting, on his life. When he could not be found for two whole days, she had him watched for so well that, one Sunday morning, when he was on the island of Louviers72 awaiting his enemy, the grand provost surprised him there and brought him away prisoner to the Bastille on the commandment of the queen. But he did not stay there longer than an hour; and afterward she sent for him and made him a half-sharp, half-gentle reprimand, as she was all sweetness or harshness when she wished. I know well what she said to me about it also, when I was seconding my cousin: that as I was the elder I ought to be the wiser. The year that the king returned from Poland,73 there arose a quarrel between messieurs de Grillon and d’Entraguet, both brave and valiant gentlemen. As they were ready to fight, the king forbade them from doing so by monsieur de Rambouillet, who was one of his captains of the guard then in service; and he commanded monsieur de Nevers and the maréchal de Retz to help them reconcile their differences, which they failed to do.74 The queen sent for them that evening in her room; and as their quarrels had to do with two great ladies of hers, she reproved them with great severity, and then asked with great gentleness that both leave their differences to her, since she did them the honor of getting involved, and, since the princes, marshals, and captains had failed to resolve their differences, she wished to have the credit for doing so. She thus made them friends, and had them embrace without further ado, taking all [their cues] from her so well that, by her prudence, the subject of the quarrel, which had to do with the honor of her two ladies and was a prickly matter, was never known or divulged. There lies the great goodness of a princess! And then to say that she had no affection for the nobility! Ha! Indeed she did; she knew it and esteemed it too well. I believe there was not a single great house in her kingdom that she did not know, and she said she learned it from the great King François, who knew all the genealogies of the great families of his kingdom, and also from the king her husband, who, when he had seen a gentleman once, knew him always, whether by his face, his deeds, or his reputation. I saw this queen, often and ordinarily, when the king was a minor, take pains to present the gentlemen of his kingdom to him herself, and reminded him: “such a one did a service to the king your grandfather, in such and such places, (1531–1611), captain of the guards. See “Discours,” p. 51 n. 2 and 3, and Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme, Recueil des Dames, poésies et tombeaux, ed. Etienne Vaucheret (Paris: Gallimard, 1991), p. 1593. 72. Small island formerly in the Seine, in Paris. 73. Henri, duc d’Anjou, was elected King of Poland in 1573; he abdicated the Polish throne for the French in 1574, after the death of his older brother, Charles IX, and went on to reign as Henri III. 74. Louis Gonzaga, duc de Nevers (1539–95); Albert de Gondi, maréchal de Retz (1522–1602). Catherine relied on Retz and other new courtiers to secure the independence of the monarchy, in large part to reduce the influence of the Guises. See J. H. M. Salmon, Society in Crisis, 151. The Discours merveilleux excoriates Retz for his Italian origins.

202 Second Discourse on the Queen this one to your father,” and so on for all the others; and she bid him remember it, love them, do well by them, and recognize them at other times. He knew very well how to do this afterward; for, by such instruction, this king knew very well the good men of lineage and honor who were in his kingdom. [Defense of Catherine’s expenditures] (52) These detractors also said that that she did not love her people. This may be how it seemed. But when she governed during the minority of her children, was there ever so much taken in taxes, subsidies, tolls, and other levies as has since been taken in a single year? Have they found so much money hidden away in Italian banks, as they accused? Far from it; after her death they did not find a single sou. And, as I heard some of her financiers and some of her ladies say, after her death she was in debt to the amount of 800,000 écus, the wages of her ladies, gentlemen, and officers of her house for a year, and her revenue of a year spent; such that, several months before dying, when her financiers warned her of this urgent situation, she laughed and said that they should praise God for all and find a way to live. That was her cupidity and the great treasure that she amassed, as they called it. But she did not take care to amass anything, for she had a heart that was wholly noble, generous, and great, just like that of her great uncle Pope Leo, and the magnificent Lord Lorenzo de Medici; for she spent and gave away all of it, or used it to build, or spent it on honorable festivals and spectacles. She took pleasure in always giving some recreation to her people or to her court, as in banquets, balls, dances, combats, and tournaments, of which she held three most superb ones in her lifetime: the one at Fontainebleau on Mardi Gras after the first troubles,75 where there were tournaments and breaking of lances, and combats at the barrier. In brief, there were all sorts of feats of arms, and a play on the subject of Ariosto’s beautiful Ginevra, which she had performed by madame d’Angoulême and the most virtuous and beautiful princesses, ladies, and maids of her court, who performed it very well, such that one never saw a lovelier one. Then at Bayonne, at the interview of the queen her good daughter, where the sumptuousness was such in all things that the Spanish, who were very disdainful of all others not their own, swore that they never saw anything more beautiful, and that their king could not approach it, and they returned edified by it. I know that many in France criticized this expense as superfluous, but the queen said that she did it to show to foreigners that France was not so totally ruined and poor because of the recent wars as they thought; and that, since they were willing to spend for such diversions, they would readily do even more for matters of consequence and importance. And most importantly, that France 75. The first War of Religion.

Second Discourse on the Queen 203 would be more esteemed and feared for it, as much for the display of wealth and riches, as for the sight of so many gentlemen so brave and adroit at arms, so that there were sure to be many to be found there, and they were a sight to behold and worthy of admiration. Moreover, it was reasonable that for the greatest queen in Christendom, the most beautiful, the most honorable and the best, they hold some solemn festival above all others. I assure you that if it were not done in such a way, foreigners would have mocked us indeed, and returned home with the opinion that we were all great beggars in France. It was not then without good and just consideration that this wise and thoughtful queen made these expenses…. [Catherine’s sense of humor, love of reading, and French] (55) On the voyage to Lorraine during the second troubles, the Huguenots had with them a very fine and great culverin,76 and called it the “Queen Mother.” They had to bury it at Villenozze, since they were unable to drag it because of its great tracks and bad harness and weight, and which moreover was never later discovered or found. The queen, who knew that they had given it her name, wished to know why. There was one man who, after being hard pressed by her to explain, replied: “Madame, it is because it has a greater and fatter diameter than the others.” She was the first to laugh. She spared no pains in reading something that struck her fancy. I saw her once, when she embarked for Blaye to dine at Bourg, reading the whole way, like a court reporter or a lawyer, a parchment on legal proceedings made against the Basque Dardois, the favorite secretary of the late monsieur the constable, on some conspiracies and information of which he had been accused and for which he had been taken prisoner at Bayonne.77 She never had it out of sight until it was read, and there were more than ten pages of parchment. When she was not hindered, she herself read all the letters of consequence that were written to her, and most often replied in her own hand—that is, to the most important people and those closest to her.78 I saw her one time, for an entire afternoon, write in her own hand twenty long pairs of letters.79 76. A field cannon. 77. Firmin d’Ardois, secretary of constable Anne de Montmorency. See “Discours,” p. 56 n. 2 and p. 1565, and René Marquis de Belleval, Les derniers Valois: François II, Charles IX, Henri III (Paris: Henri Vivien, 1900), 608. 78. This is an indication of a notable feature of pre-modern epistolary practice: that is, that letters were often read aloud to their addressees, and written by dictation to scribes, such that writing letters in one’s own hand often signaled a certain distinction. 79. This likely refers to writing two copies of each letter she composed: one for expedition, and one to remain in her own records alongside the letter to which it replied. While this practice testifies to

204 Second Discourse on the Queen She spoke and conversed extremely well in French, although she was Italian. To those of her nation, moreover, she very often spoke French, so much did she honor France and its language, and showed off her fine speech to important people, foreigners, and ambassadors who always sought audience with her after the king.80 She responded to them most pertinently, with a most beautiful grace and majesty, as I have also seen her speak at the courts of parlement, whether in public or in private. I often saw her guide them well, when they digressed or were too reticent, and did not wish to yield to the edicts made in her privy council or to the king’s ordinances and her own. Be assured that she spoke well as a queen and made herself feared as queen. (57) I have seen the late monsieur de Savoie, who was a friend of the Emperor, the King of Spain, and who moved among so many great men, fear and respect her more than if she had been his own mother, and monsieur de Lorraine as well, in short all the great men of Christendom.81 I could cite many more such examples, but I will tell them of another time, in their proper place: on this, what I have just said will suffice. [On Catherine’s devotion and her court; praise of Catherine’s ladies and personal style] (57) Among all her perfections, she was a good Christian and very devout, observed Easter, and never failed to attend divine service every day, at mass and vespers; which she made very agreeable as well as devout, by the good singers of her chapel, for which she had been intent to procure the most excellent ones. She also loved music by nature, and entertained her court with music in her quarters, which were not at all closed to virtuous ladies and gentlemen, indeed to all men and women, for she did not wish to restrict them as they do in Spain and in Italy her country, and as our other queens, Elisabeth d’Autriche and Louise de Lorraine, have done.82 She said that, as King François her father-in-law, whom she greatly honored, trained her at court and made her free, she wished to maintain the court as a true Frenchwoman a documentary thoroughness and an awareness of the attention of posterity, it is also highly suggestive of Catherine’s careful political practice, keeping meticulous track of promises made, obedience rendered, and slights. 80. These sentences are telling, not so much of Brantôme’s inconsistency as of his efforts to emphasize Catherine’s French lineage. And yet she is, despite her maternal lineage, considered Italian by this most sympathetic and laudatory French writer, suggesting the irrevocable stamp of nation in the sixteenth century. 81. It is noteworthy that Brantôme plays on Catherine’s maternity, casting her as a natural mother who inspires filial emotions in her subjects as part of her natural capacity to rule authoritatively and well. 82. Elizabeth of Austria (1554–92); wife of Charles IX, daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II. Louise de Lorraine (1553–1601), wife of Henri III.

Second Discourse on the Queen 205 would,83 without changing or reforming anything, and that the king her husband had wished this as well: and her quarters were all the pleasure of the court. She typically had very beautiful and virtuous ladies-in-waiting, with whom we conversed, discussed, and chatted every day in her antechamber, very discreetly and modestly. One would not have dared do otherwise, for the gentleman who failed in this was banished and threatened, and feared worse, until the queen pardoned and forgave him, so proper and completely good was she. In sum, her company and court were a true paradise in the world and a school of all decorum and virtue, the ornament of France, as foreigners said when they came, for they were very well received. Her ladies and maids were expressly commanded to dress up at their arrival so that they appeared as goddesses, and to attend to them without tarrying at other activities; otherwise they were strongly rebuked by her, and soundly reprimanded for it.84 In short, her court was such that, when she died, everyone said that the court was no longer the court, and that never again would there be such a queen mother in France. What a court it was, such that I believe never did an empress of ancient Rome ever hold one like it for ladies, nor our Kings of France … . (67) … The queen wished and commanded her ladies always to appear gloriously and sumptuously dressed, although during her widowhood she never adorned herself in worldly silks unless they were mournful. Yet she did this so handsomely and properly, that she appeared indeed queen above all. It is true that on the wedding days of her two sons, Charles and Henri, she wore dresses of black velvet, wishing, she said, to solemnize the celebration by this distinction.85 But while she was married, she dressed herself very richly and superbly, and appeared truly as what she was. What was truly beautiful to see and admire were the general processions that were held where the court assembled, either at Paris or other locations, however small they were, like those of Corpus Christi day, and those of Palm Sunday. They bore their palms and branches with such a lovely grace, and on Candlemas day they likewise bore their candles, whose flames competed with theirs. At these three processions, which were very solemn, one could not help but notice every beauty, grace, lovely bearing, beautiful gait, and splendor, and the beholders were wholly enraptured. It was also lovely to see the queen as she went through the country in her litter during pregnancy when she was married. When she went on horseback 83. “[A] la vraye françoise.” See “Discours,” 58. 84. This emphasis on the behavior of the ladies of her court might seem misplaced, until we recall that references to women and virtue justify the stated goal of Brantôme’s project. 85. Charles IX to Elizabeth of Austria, November 26, 1570; Henri III to Louise de Lorraine-Vaudémont, February 15, 1575.

206 Second Discourse on the Queen to hunt, or through the country, you would have seen forty to fifty ladies or maids follow her, mounted on beautiful ambling horses that were wonderfully harnessed, and they sat their horses with such good grace that the men did not appear better at it, as regards their riding apparel or anything else; their hats were well garnished with feathers, which enriched all the more their grace, so that these feathers fluttering in the air represented a demand for love or war. Virgil, who wished to involve himself in writing of the majestic appearance of Queen Dido when she was at the hunt, did not come near to describing that of our queen with her ladies, may this not displease her. Also as I said above, this queen, who was raised by the hand of the great King François, who introduced this beautiful and splendid sumputousness, wished to forget nothing nor leave aside what she had learned, but wished always to imitate and even surpass it, and I have seen her speak three or four times in my life on this subject. Those who have seen all these things like me still feel their soul ravished by them like mine; for what I say is true, for I have seen it. There, then, is the court of our queen. How unfortunate the day when such a queen died! I have heard it said that our king today, some eighteen months after he saw himself a little advanced in the hopes of being King of France, undertook to discuss one day with the late monsieur le maréchal de Biron his designs and progress to one day make his court abundant, beautiful, and in all ways similar to that which our queen maintained; for that was when it was in its greatest glory and splendor.86 Monsieur le maréchal replied, “it is not in your power, nor in that of any king who will ever come, unless you arrange it with God that he resuscitate for you the queen mother, and bring her to you.” But this was not what the king wanted, for when she died there was no one that he hated as much as her, and without reason, as I was able to see: but he should know it better than I. How unfortunate was the day that such a queen died, and at the point at which we had greatest need of her, and have still! [Catherine’s death] (69) She died at Blois of sadness over the massacre that took place, and the grievous tragedy that played out there, realizing that, without thinking that this would happen, she had summoned the princes there in the hope of doing good, as monsieur le cardinal de Bourbon said to her: “Alas! Madame, you have led us all to the slaughter without realizing it.”87 This, and the death of these poor people, so touched her heart that she took to her bed again, as she had been sick, and never arose from it again. 86. Henri IV; the first maréchal de Biron, Armand de Gontaut (1524–92). 87. Charles de Bourbon (1523–90), archbishop of Rouen, then cardinal, considered the “king” of the Catholic League.

Second Discourse on the Queen 207 They said that, when the king announced to her the murder of monsieur de Guise, and that he was now an absolute king without comparison or master, she asked him if he had placed the affairs of his kingdom in order before arranging this coup.88 He replied yes. “May God wish it so, my son.” As she was very prudent, she foresaw what was to become of him, and the kingdom. There are some who have spoken diversely about her death, and even of poison. Perhaps yes, perhaps no; but we believe her dead and worn out from vexation, as well she had reason. She was laid in state, as I heard one of her ladies say, not more nor less than Queen Anne, of whom I spoke before, and dressed in the same royal clothes as Queen Anne, which had not served anyone else since her. She was carried to the church outside the castle, in the same solemnity and custom as Queen Anne, where she lies and rests still.89 The king wished to have her brought to Chartres and from there to St. Denis, to place her with the king her husband in the same tomb that she had made for him so beautiful and so superb; but the war that came prevented all this.90 There, then, is what I can say now about this great queen, who gave such great reasons to speak worthily of her that this small discourse is not enough for her praises. I know it well; but I also know the quality of my knowledge might not suffice, since even the best speakers would be impeded. Nevertheless, for such a discourse as it is, I offer it in all humility and devotion at her feet, and thus also hope to flee too great prolixity, for which indeed I feel myself too capable. But I hope not to depart from her so much in my discourse that I fall silent and not speak when I should, as her beautiful and peerless qualities command me, and give me ample matter, having seen all that I have written about her, and what happened in my time. Of other times, I have learned about them from very illustrious persons, as I will do for all these books. This queen who was mother of so many kings, And queens also, all belonging to France, Died when we had most need of her; For none but she could help us.

88. See Etienne Pasquier’s treatment of this event in our Appendix. 89. The reference to “Queen Anne” is to Anne de Bretagne (1477–1514). 90. Knecht, citing Pasquier and Cloulas, discusses Catherine’s interment, first at Blois; her remains were not transferred to St. Denis for more than two decades, where they remained until the eighteenth century, when a revolutionary mob placed the bones of all the kings and their consorts in an unmarked mass grave. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 269; Etienne Pasquier, Lettres historiques pour les années 1556–1594, ed. Dorothy Thickett (Geneva: Droz, 1966), 386–87; Ivan Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis (Paris: Fayard, 1979), 604–5.

208 Second Discourse on the Queen [End of Book I] (232) Now I will conclude. I have spoken enough on this subject, on which I fear having been too prolix and thus importunate, but it was necessary to speak of it, for they were brave queens, and yet hated by some, as I said, for it is ultimately the nature of some men to detest the domination of women.91

91. “Discours,” 232. The end of Book II, widely known as the “Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies” and containing much more salacious material, describes the discrepancy between the two volumes: “I have in the end strayed a little from my first discourse; but consider that after morality and tragedy come farce. With this, I conclude.” See “Discours,” 722.

Appendix A Note on the Appendix The following texts date from 1519 to 1589—roughly contemporary with the life of Catherine de Médicis. They include selections from generically diverse texts composed by widely divergent authors. Like the other texts in this volume, with which these selections are often in dialogue, they offer a range of views on Catherine, from laudatory to vituperative, and on contemporary politics and affairs in the kingdom of France. We include them here as additional examples of the textual portraiture of Catherine de Médicis in circulation during the sixteenth century.

209

210 Appendix

“Letters of Naturalization for Lorenzo de’ Medici, Duke of Urbino, and Catherine, His Daughter” May 15191 François, by the grace of God King of France: We let it be known to all those present and those to come that, at our request and commandment, our most dear and beloved cousin, Lorenzo de Medici, Duke of Urbino, came into our kingdom, and took alliance through marriage with our most dear and beloved cousin, the late Madeleine de Boulogne. From this marriage is issued our dear and beloved cousin Catherine de Médicis, their infant daughter, the heir of all property remaining after their death, both in our kingdom and beyond it. Because our cousin, the Duke of Urbino, and his daughter were born outside our kingdom, and because our officers and others could claim that this property belongs to us by right of escheatage or otherwise, by means of royal ordinance on these facts, in order to obviate and remove any difficulty and impediment that one could bring to their claim, we have of our own action, certain knowledge, special grace, great power and royal authority, declared and continue to declare by these present letters that we have always held and esteemed, and continue to hold and esteem, our late cousin, the Duke of Urbino, and our cousin, his daughter, to be our allied and confederated subjects, capable and able to inherit, and also able to bequeath to their successors, through both testamentary document and otherwise, without us or our descendants being able to dispute or claim any right to the property and inheritance bequeathed to our cousin Catherine de Médicis through the death of our late cousins, the Duke and Duchess of Urbino, her father and mother. Nor do we exercise any right over the inheritance that could be issued from her and come to her descendants, be they direct, collateral, or otherwise, on the pretext that our late cousin the Duke of Urbino and his daughter were born outside of our kingdom, as is stated. Moreover, from our most ample grace, we have given, ceded, and remitted to her, and we continue to give, cede, and remit to her by these present letters, any such right that we could claim to these goods and inheritance, either by cause of escheatage or otherwise. Moreover, we have granted and accorded to our cousin the faculty and ability to acquire in this our kingdom any such movable and immovable property as she pleases; as well as to succeed to any property and inheritance that could come to her in our kingdom, country, and seigneuries by good and just title. Of these, together with those already acquired, we grant her the faculty to order and dispose of them by her last will 1. Lead translator: Leah L. Chang. “Lettres de naturalité pour Laurent de Médicis, duc d’Urbin, et Catherine, sa fille.” In Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, vol. 10, ed. Gustave Baguenault de Puchesse (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1909), 477–78. A copy of these letters of naturalization may be found at the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris, Fonds français, nº 20176, fº 61.

Appendix 211 and testament as her own belongings and heritage; and that her heirs, or others to whom she could bequeath them, may succeed her and undertake the succession, possession, and pleasure of her holdings, and together enjoy any other such right, prerogative, and preeminence, as if she had been born and originated in our kingdom, without paying us any levy or indemnity for this purpose. In light of the value and worth that she may show, we have given, accorded, and remitted this to her as the occasion arises, and we continue to give and remit this to her by these present letters, signed with our hand. We command, by our present grace, declaration, and permission, and by any effect and content in these present letters, that our beloved and faithful servants, the gentlemen of our accounts and treasury in Paris, and all other justices and officers of the court or their lieutenants, accept and allow our cousin to enjoy and use this right fully and peacefully, without serving her, or allowing her to be served with, any arrest of these rights, or disruption or impediment to the contrary. Which impediment, if it is done or given to her, they will remove and repair, and have removed, repaired, and restored immediately without delay to its original and just state, for this is our pleasure, notwithstanding any statutes or ordinances. And no discharge of the stated levy will be issued, according to the order of our finances and any ordinances, restitutions, inhibitions, or prohibitions to the contrary. In order to establish this in perpetuity, we have affixed our seal to these present letters, without prejudice to our right or those of others. Given at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, in the month of May, the year of grace 1519, in the fifth year of our reign. François [On the bottom fold] By the king: Robertet2

2. Florimond Robertet, seigneur d’Alluye, was a secretary of state under Louis XII and François Ier.

212 Appendix

“Copy of Letters Sent to the Queen Mother by One of Her Servants after the Death of the Late King Henri II”3 Madame, it has already been twelve years and more since I retired from court to my home, so that I could better contemplate the end for which man was placed on earth, and strive with the aid, goodness, and free grace of the Eternal to do my duty, or part of it, having turned myself away and proposed never to open my ears, and to concern myself less with all that might happen in the world and in this kingdom. So it is that at present it has been impossible for the very humble, very affectionate and faithful servitude that I owe Your Excellence, my very good and virtuous queen, to be able to bear and endure in silence the death of my king, [which is the cause of] your unspeakable misfortune, extraordinary trouble, and extreme suffering. And it has been impossible for me not to be vehemently troubled and afflicted because of it along with my dearest friends and neighbors, by words both spoken and written. After my spirits had some rest to submit themselves to God’s holy decrees, I took myself aside in profound thoughts and reflection to find the source and cause of the misfortune that befell the late king and yourself, whom it still pursues. In the end I have found it, Madame, the truth has shown it to me, and I will have you know it in detail by relating the sadness of your young age, and the help and favor that God gave you [CVI], because you asked it of Him with your whole heart. I will begin, then, Madame, by telling you that it was during the reign of the late King François, when the late king,4 who at the time was dauphin, had returned from Piedmont where he had so forgotten himself that he committed a foul and loathsome adultery, thanks to the counsel and conduct of certain minions, those wicked and faithless servants. By these men who surrounded in abundance the miserable sénéchale, Diane de Poitiers, that public and common receptacle of so many lecherous and dissolute men both dead and still living, this adultery was introduced to him like a ring from which he would learn great virtue. And after the news arrived that a bastard daughter had been born of this adultery, you were made mention of, Madame, by these mockers and that old whore: who among themselves dismissed you and declared you unfit for the greatness and honor of being the wife of the dauphin of France, 3. Lead translator: Katherine Kong. “Copie des lettres envoyées a la Roine-mere par un sien serviteur apres la mort du feu roy Henri II.” The following letters, which were clearly composed as propagandistic and polemical pieces, are included in Nicole Cazauran, ed., Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportements de Catherine de Médicis, Royne-mère (Geneva: Droz, 1995), 283–94, hereafter abbreviated as “DM.” The first letter appears to have been composed during the reign of François II; the second, after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres. Both letters are included in at least two 1575 copies of the Discours merveilleux (Stanford University Library and the Bibliothèque nationale), and in several editions from 1576 and 1578. They do not appear in Simon Goulart’s Mémoires; cf. DM, 65. Folio numbers from the 1576 edition, also reproduced in the Cazauran edition, are given in brackets. 4. Henri II.

Appendix 213 because you would never have children, and moreover because you put so much at stake in having them, given that it did not please your lord and husband [that you had not yet had children].5 I recall that at the seat and castle of Roussillon on the Rhône, they held a great discussion about it, news of which reached the late Queen of Navarre,6 who was particularly fond of you, and who told me: those are wicked people, for I also know that they desire the death of the king my lord and brother, who would never permit the repudiation that they seek. Someone wrote to me from Italy that Vitupère Vanlay dared to say to one of the greatest men of Lombardy that it would be a fine shot of the harquebus that would kill the king from some window. But God will destroy them, preserve the king, and give children to madame the princess when she arrives at the age at which the women of the house of Medici begin to bear children. And the king and I will rejoice with her, despite such wicked and miserable people. You were not so ignorant, Madame, of such wickedness orchestrated against you, indeed you were [CVII] heartbroken over it, and beseeched the Lord through tears and prayer because it troubled you. During this time you recognized Him, honoring the holy Bible, which was in your coffers or on your table, and in which you looked and read now and then. And your women and servants enjoyed the great benefit of reading from it. There was only your nurse who hardly loved you, no more than she loved God, who was enraged because of it. Now, Madame, we have good cause here to contemplate God’s goodness and providence, which it pleases Him to bestow upon his creatures. God in His goodness did not respond to you right away: he left you several years languishing to seek, ask, and demand that He come to your aid, and it pleased Him to allow you to understand the harm that you feared would arrive through the maladies that He sent to the late King François. What is more, He let your enemies take vain joy against you, drunk and swollen with the false hope of, in brief, manipulating their ruler and the kingdom: so much so that they let escape from their arrogant and boastful tongues much folly and bravado, at which the Eternal, who was at that time your protector and had more concern for you than you could hope for and perceive, scoffed. And immediately He prepared and opened the means by which He willed that the king’s great blessing, and yours, be born and emerge in manifest perfection. For this Father, full of grace, made the thirty psalms of David most pleasing to the heart of the late King François, along with the Dominican prayer, the Angelic salutation, and the symbol of the Apostles, which the 5. Infertility was a serious problem for a queen, whose principal function was to produce an heir. One well-known story reports that when Catherine remained childless after eight years of marriage, she went to King François and offered to remove herself so that Henri could remarry. François, however, ultimately refused to repudiate her. See Ivan Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis (Paris: Fayard, 1979), 66–69. 6. Marguerite de Navarre, sister of François Ier. The entire passage after the colon, to the end of the paragraph, is narrated in Marguerite’s voice.

214 Appendix late Clément Marot had translated and dedicated to His Greatness and Majesty.7 He commanded Marot to present this in its entirety to the Emperor Charles V, who favorably received this translation, took it, and with both spoken words and a gift of two hundred doublons to Marot, gave him the courage to complete the translation of the rest of the psalms, [CVIII] requesting that Marot send him the translation of Confitemini Domino quoniam bonus as soon as he could because he loved it.8 Seeing this, and hearing the musicians of these two princes, indeed all those of our France, vie with each other in setting the psalms to music, everybody sang them. But if anyone loved and embraced them dearly and unswervingly, sang them and had them sung, it was the late King Henri, in such a way that the good people praised God, and his minions and his whore loved them or regularly feigned to love them so much as to ask, Monsieur, can this one be mine? You will give me that one, if you please. And thus this good Prince was prevented from giving them out willingly according to his desires. Nevertheless he kept for himself, which you may and should recall, Madame, this one: Truly happy is he who Serves God willingly, etc. He wrote the melody for this psalm himself, which was a very good and pleasing song, and truly fitting to the words. He sang it and had it sung so often, that he plainly showed that he was pricked and spurred to be blessed [with children], as David described in this psalm, and to see in you the truth of the figure of the vine.9 This was after he had recovered from his illness at Angoulême. The queen my mistress (who was then with King François her brother), beseeching him to embrace in pity and clemency the citizens of La Rochelle instead 7. Clément Marot (1496–1544), celebrated court poet and supporter of the Reformation, patronized by Marguerite de Navarre. A Protestant, Marot found himself exiled on several occasions—sometimes voluntarily—outside of France. Marot translated the psalms and offered a manuscript copy of them to Charles V of Spain in 1540; he acquired a royal privilege to publish the psalms in 1541 and dedicated the volume “To the most Christian King François, first of that name.” The translation appears to have been favorably received by both Charles V and François Ier, but it provoked the ire of the Sorbonne, which had already denounced Marot as a heretic. Dictionnaire des lettres françaises: Le XVIe siècle, ed. Michel Simonin (Paris: Fayard, 2001), 796–806. 8. Charles V of Spain. “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good.” The reference to the specific psalm is unclear. Cazauran notes that several psalms (105, 106, 117, 135 in the Vulgate) begin with this incipit; of these, Marot translated 106 and 117: DM, p. 285, n. 315. 9. According to Cazauran, the reference is to psalm 127 of the Vulgate, Beati omnes qui timent Dominum (eighteenth in Marot’s translation): “The king wishes for the queen to give him children so that he can apply the third verse of the psalm to himself: ‘your wife in your house / Will be like a vine / Bearing fruit in abundance.’ ” Cf. DM, p. 285, n. 316.

Appendix 215 of massacring them, sent me to you to learn of his illness:10 which I found already so diminished that he was singing these psalms with lutes, viols, virginals, and flutes, the voices of his singers among them, and taking great delight in this. He ordered me to approach because he knew that I liked music, and I played a bit on the lute and the gittern. And he gave to me the song and the parts that I carried to the queen my mistress, with the news of the return of your good health. I will not forget [CIX] also your psalm, which you asked often to be sung. It was, Toward the Eternal, the father of the oppressed I will go, showing him the accusation That is made against me, etc.11 When the Queen of Navarre saw these two psalms, and heard how they were often sung, even by monsieur the dauphin, she showed much admiration, then said to me, I know not where madame the princess found this psalm, “Toward the Eternal,” it is not among those translated by Marot. But it is not possible for her to have found another that would better represent her affliction, and by which she could more clearly show her feelings and ask God to be unburdened of them, as truly she will be. For since it pleased God to place this gift in their hearts, now is the time, now the days are near that the king’s eyes will be content, the desires of my lord the prince fulfilled and satisfied, the thoughts of madame la dauphine’s enemies overturned, and also my hope and the faith of my prayers will come to a good end. Hardly more than a year will pass before the merciful visit of the Lord will appear, and I will wager that she will have a son for greater joy and satisfaction. Will we not then have good occasion to say, indeed to sing with her, Blessed be our good Lord, who has faithfully visited and succored those who prayed to Him in the bitterness of their hearts, and shed their tears before Him, seeking and awaiting His grace? Truly we will indeed. And, in saying these words, this charitable princess could not prevent some tears from appearing in her eyes for the joy and vehement love that she felt for you, Madame. She was a holy sibyl for you, and truly a soothsayer for, thirteen to fourteen months from that moment, you gave birth to our King François, who lives today. And this celestial and supreme beneficence that wished to manifest in you, gave you nearly one year after the next both sons and daughters, as everyone can see, which caused unbelievable [CX] grief in your enemies, and inestimable joy for those who loved you: and above all for that great king and grandfather, who delighted in this fortunate birth. 10. This refers to an episode in 1542, in which François Ier visited his sister Marguerite de Navarre in Nérac, then went on to La Rochelle, the site of several uprisings in reaction to increased taxation of salt; cf. DM, p. 285, n. 317. 11. Psalm 141 in the Vulgate, although Cazauran notes that in the 1541 edition printed at Anvers, this psalm is not signed by Marot but only by the single initial “D”: DM, p. 285, n. 318.

216 Appendix But as the good Lord was making you more fertile, the late king was neglecting and forgetting this merciful act: such that God, irritated, permitted this poor prince, who was drunk with the monthly flux of that old whore Diane, to give a young serpent access to his home (thanks to her), who secretly licked her bosom and made himself her oracle, and she his instrument.12 He began to cast aspersions on these psalms of David, which teach us to leave behind all sins, to strengthen chastity, and to fortify virtue: and instead he made much of the lascivious verses of Horace that inflame the thoughts and the flesh toward all kinds of lubricities and lecheries, and he put forward other foolish songs.13 And they had other songs written by those diabolical poets about their infamous loves, not only to maintain their impure and unchaste life but also to engulf and absorb them into the abyss of every iniquity and disorder: indeed of every impiety. For after seeing that this great sénéchale possessed a Bible in French in imitation of you, with a great sign of the cross, a slap of the hand on his chest, and the sighing words of a hypocrite, he went around condemning and damning it to her, warning her that she should not read it because of the perils and dangers that are in this act, and even that such reading was not proper for women. But rather, in the place of one mass, she should hear two of them, and content herself with her paternosters and her hours, where there were so many beautiful devotions and beautiful images. In this way this poor old sinner persuaded the late king of all that he said, and they constrained you, Madame, to the point of dismissing your confessor Bouteiller who had preached to you and purely administered the Evangelical truth. In place of Bouteiller, they forced upon you her doctor Henuyer Sorboniste, to deprave your conscience.14 Afterward they gave him to the late [CXI] king to govern his conscience as well, to know it, and imprint it with whatever the doctor wished. In brief, he robbed both of you of these saintly fixtures that never perish but rather maintain in purity he who possesses them and his whole house. He hid them from you, and rendered you both captives of vain superstitions, tied up in the noose of the old hag, whom he first blinded the better to play her role. The Almighty, seeing that you were defenseless, and that you did not defend against this using the sacred arms that He had given you, and did not give your power and your life for the salvation and conservation of your lord and husband, who was all soft and made beastly (if we must speak this way), left you in the hand of this serpent, who was now your household enemy. Nevertheless as He did not want to remove his compassion completely, He admonished you to invoke 12. Charles de Lorraine (1524–74), first Cardinal de Guise, then Cardinal de Lorraine. 13. Horace (65–8 BCE), Roman lyric poet during the reign of Caesar Augustus. 14. “Henuyer Sorboniste”: a satirical play on the figure of the boring theological doctor from the Sorbonne: “Henuyer” as in “ennuyer” or “to bore,” and “Sorboniste” as in “follower” or “philosophizer” of the Sorbonne.

Appendix 217 Him in such perplexity, and bring you back to Him by calling unto Himself the late monsieur d’Orléans, who was your eldest child. And after his patience let a few years pass, opening His arms, and calling to see if you would return to Him (which you had not done), He wished to give you two children at the same time, but with such labor that your body was infinitely harmed by it: and both of them died. Such that, not having profited from the first death, you saw by these last two the preparations that He was making to chastise you, bringing misfortune to the king and his lands. But this king’s judgment was entirely covered in obscurity, and yours was obfuscated: inasmuch as you succeeded in defiling yourself in diverse idolatries, snubbing and spurning the chief and first commandment of the Decalogue, mocking through your wicked deeds the recourse that one ought to have to Him alone in times of tribulation.15 You have corrupted with wood, stone, gold, and silver during the upheavals in the kingdom, by the taking of Saint Quentin, caused by that young serpent and his brother, to save the Roman [Papal] seat, as Petrarch describes it so well in his [CXII] three sonnets beginning, FIAMA DAL CIEL.16 For which God, angered and offended by all of it, permitted the late king to be hardened until he became the truly perfect and utter enemy of His holy word, and of those who invoke Him and serve purely [in the world] here below. This greatly pleased the young snake, old in malice and evil, son of Cain, who spilled the blood of his brother Abel, and who rejoiced and delighted in pursuing the paternal trade.17 God left to this departed king the bridle and the power to place wickedly and insolently his hands on His elect and destroy their bodies. But also it has pleased Him to show the world that He was able and knew well how to take vengeance when it pleased Him to do so: for in the middle of your triumphs and wedding celebrations when you were pressing forward a civil and icy peace, even on the very afternoon after a morning spent plotting against his people, He made the late king succumb and killed him with one blow of the lance, and in an ignoble fashion.18 This king (I say) whose nature was admirably good, and who never parted ways with God, so long as he was surrounded by good and kind people, as he was from birth: king (I say again) whose double loss pierces my heart. Alas, the 15. The Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments. Catherine’s children who died included Louis d’Orléans and the twin girls, Jeanne and Victoire. Louis was not the eldest child, as the text mistakenly claims, but rather her fourth. 16. The text refers to an episode in 1557: Henri II had sent troops to Rome under the command of the duc de Guise to save Pope Paul IV after Rome was besieged and the pope taken hostage by the Spanish, under the Duke of Alba. Philip II of Spain then went on to capture the northern French town of Saint Quentin, and the duc de Guise was recalled; R.J. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici (New York: Addison Wesley, 1998), 21. Francis Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca, 1304–74); Petrarch’s sonnet 136 of the Canzoniere, of which the above line is the incipit, attacks the corruption of the papal court at Avignon. 17. Cain and Abel, respectively the first- and second-born sons of Adam and Eve. 18. Henri II was famously wounded in a joust in 1559 during the festivities celebrating the wedding of his daughter, Elisabeth of Valois, to Philip II of Spain. He died from his wounds a few days later.

218 Appendix small number of his poor and loyal servants hoped that at the end his eyes might be opened, and he might recognize the error to which he had been led. But (O worthy example) who killed him? Was it not Lorges, who by his own order had only just arrested and imprisoned the innocent and third Elijah? Whom this poor king resolved to see burn with his own eyes, before leaving Paris? What became of his eyes?19 What did the hand of God do to them? Now all you who love and fear the Almighty, I know that you know and see it clearly. Also I wish to believe that the wicked who are the cause of the strange death of this king are forced to feel it, as truly Pharaoh felt the cause of the plagues of Egypt and the death of his first born. Or as Saul felt David’s integrity when he was pursuing him to his death. [CXIII] Madame, my Princess, for whom I would willingly say to God as Moses did: Erase me from the Book of Life, or pardon her, and call her back to you. And with Paul, I wish to be anathematized for the salvation of my queen. Could not the sight and the life, thus extinguished, of this king give you cause to raise yourself up, and convert and return with all your heart to God who is so quick to pardon, that His compassion surpasses the height of the heavens? And see vividly and more clearly than at midday the cause of such a horrible misfortune? Do not resist seeing it: I am showing you every detail, as I promised you at the beginning of my letter. And if there is still some spark of light in you, the truth will uncover the fact for you, as it did for me by divine compassion. Madame, lift up and yield your hands to God and He will raise you up. Go confidently to Him, He cries after your poor soul, for which He did not spare His precious blood. Go, I say, confidently: for it is His way to pardon. Make Him the sacrifice of repentance and praise, taking up again these beautiful psalms of David, with which you once cooled your anguished spirit, and for which He blessed you in creating them. They are now beneficial and necessary to you, more than they ever were, with the daily hearing or reading of the word of God. May your lips be the calves [of sacrifice], and your tears and sighs the fragrant odors and perfumes. He will wipe your eyes and make your heart rejoice, shore up your lost strength, embrace you and kiss you with the kiss of His mouth, which is the kiss of peace, assurance, and tranquility in Him. Madame, look, go, do not turn away, do not allow and endure that this snake, the red devil, and his followers put their hand forward, and throw over your face the veil of atheism, which they profess, to the point of having said: that the law of Jesus Christ, pure and in its Apostolic simplicity, is the law of the scoundrels, insofar as it fights for the ruin and total destruction of their ambition, and against 19. Henri II had ordered Gabriel de Lorges, comte de Montgomery, to arrest the Protestant magistrate, Anne du Bourg, for treason against the crown. Du Bourg, who was sentenced to be burned, is here represented by the prophet Elijah, who in the Bible is tormented by King Ahab and his wicked queen, Jezebel (to whom Catherine was frequently compared in the polemical texts; see the examples below). Like Elijah, Anne du Bourg represents pure or true faith. During the fateful joust in 1559, it was Montgomery who jousted against Henri II, and it was a splinter from his lance that pierced the king’s eye and led to the brain infection that killed him; cf. DM, p. 288, n. 330.

Appendix 219 all the iniquitous [CXIIII] enterprises they undertake, to the detriment and harm of the respectable people around them. Madame, separate and distance yourself from such monstrous strangers, do not endure that those who are not of the house, and who have no part of its heritage, occupy through treachery and violence the power of the king and yourself.20 Under the cloak and the name of this lord and yourself, they pillage and murder the children and legitimate people of the kingdom. Do not endure that they thus go recoiling and weakened, and stamping out as if underfoot the princes and blood of this crown. In brief, it is known everywhere that this serpent the cardinal, who by his harmful arrogances and audacities that we have suffered for too long, shows himself seated on the lilial throne, dressed and adorned with enormous cruelty, holding as tightly as possible the means to defraud the king and France of just lineage and true descendants. Ah Madame, think, think of yourself who bear the name of queen mother. Embody this position then by good and praiseworthy deeds. Withdraw yourself and the king from such captivity and dangerous misfortune. Do not allow that, by fear, negligence or stupidity, you be said to consent to such harm (although there is nothing to it), and that the future chronicle of the king and yourself be crude, dark, and black. Do not allow this Guisard to write on his tomb: I was never king, but I loved to make kings and command them. Keep, Madame, keep the birthright that belongs to your entrails, messeigneurs your children of Orléans, Angoulême, and Anjou, that nothing be usurped from them by fraud, and that all proceed in surety according to God’s will.21 May the princes of the blood, who are their best and greatest servants, be there for you with honor. Finally, Madame, consider what I say, which are the words of the Prophet, that if you do not do this, you will see such misfortune upon misfortune befall this kingdom (and it is impossible for it to be otherwise) that, finding no other remedy for this wickedness, we will be constrained with you to desire, call, and cry out: Death, come to us. And it will flee from us [CXV]. To cry out: Mountains crumble upon us. Earth, open up to hide us: to hide us, I say, from the judgment of the living God, who has kept for Himself vengeance and its day, reclaiming the blood of His small and feeble flock. Madame, may God keep you from such a thing, may He grant you the grace of delivering you from these wicked and malicious spirits, and send you His true principal spirit. And let Him flow from you into the heart of our king your beloved son, giving him the judgment to reign, and the zeal, love, and fear of His 20. A reference, echoed frequently in texts of the period, and particularly during the reign of François II, to the Guises as foreigners from Savoy who had infiltrated the French court. Unlike the later DM, which identifies Italians, and particularly Florentines, as foreign agents of corruption, the reference to the Guises as foreigners undergirds the dating of this piece to 1559–1560. 21. The author refers to the royal sons by their titles, the ducs d’Orléans, d’Angoulême, and d’Anjou. The narrator’s choice of word “entrailles” (entrails, bowels, guts) seems a stark way to refer to Catherine’s womb and, by extension, her progeny, which nevertheless reinforces in a literally visceral way the maternity Catherine herself had worked to emphasize as the grounds for legitimating her royal authority.

220 Appendix holy name, as did King Josiah when he was of similar age. May He preserve you, together with messeigneurs your children unto life eternal, for the joy and happiness of all the good and Christian French people, Amen. From our poor house, this 26th of August, 1559. Your very humble and very obedient subject. D.V.22

Letter to the Queen Mother Madame, it was some time ago that monsieur de Beauvais, returning from Your Majesties, urged me to tell him who had recently told me while I was in Lyon that Your Majesty was keeping a noose to hang me with when I returned to court, telling me that you in particular wished to know this. Now, since I was thus warned about what was proper and necessary for me to know for the preservation of one of the worldly things that I hold most dear, I will never name those who so faithfully warned me. I will only say that they are very good Catholics, who know more of your doings and of the tragic state of the court than [CXVI] all the Huguenots in France. Also, Madame, I have since received a letter and a passport by the ambassador of Ligues sent from Avignon by monsieur Brûlart the secretary of state, whom Your Majesty ordered to write to me; I was ordered to go find him in Lyon, because you wished to speak with me, and employ me in your service.23 But I had previously heard from the abovementioned Catholics of things no less remarkable than detestable to all those who profess virtue. And although I was unable to find the courage to put it into words for you, nevertheless, Madame, knowing for a long time that you are curious to know and learn things that happen in your absence, I will recount to you only the least and most tolerable of those things that I heard from the abovementioned Catholics, which so horrified me that, ever since that moment, I have kept to one of the principal cantons of the Rhône valley. On this point your Majesty should be warned that I have had the good fortune to meet with two noble and wise Catholics, one of whom has known me for about twenty-one years, and the other since the time of the day of treachery.24 For it has been twenty-nine years since I was at court, without playing the courtier, or 22. As noted in the DM, p. 290, n. 342: “According to the Histoire de l’Estat de France … sous le règne de François II (1576), attributed to Régnier de la Planche, these initials are developed into the name “De Villemadon”: the letter was supposedly sent ‘by a gentleman who signed as Villemadon to whom the said Lady had once privately spoken of her affairs and even of points regarding religion.’ ” 23. Pierre Brûlart (1535–1608), secretary of state under Charles IX and Henri III. 24. The “day of treachery” is a Protestant reference to the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in Paris. Although, as we have noted, many see this event as a series of “massacres” in the plural, as the killings lasted several days and then spread to the provinces in the weeks and months that followed, the

Appendix 221 pursuing any military action. After I told them of my trip, and the little hope and satisfaction that I was taking from it, and when they saw that I was ready to turn back, we three went into a private room, and they began to tell me several things: How could you trust the queen mother [they said], in light of the tragedies that each one of you knows that she has orchestrated, indeed both among you and among us? And no one should think that this is because of any reason of religion. For the good lady does not believe in it at all. Nevertheless she fears God like all devils. As for the rest, she is certainly the cause of all the misfortunes that have befallen our poor monarchy because of the irreconcilable hatred that she bears for our nation, with which [CXVII] she seeks to avenge herself entirely at any cost, and under pretext of religion. Now you know that on your side she has committed several kinds of betrayal. First she had the late sieur Dandelot poisoned and after that the cardinal de Châtillon his brother, and the late Queen of Navarre. Then she was the sole cause of the most horrible massacre in all of France. Afterward she had Monsieur, the duc [d’Alençon] her son, poisoned—whose death was blamed on the plague. Then the duc de Longueville, then the duc de Bouillon, whose doctor was hung at Sedan. And before all these things she had the prince de Porcien poisoned by the great Emile. Also you need to understand one thing, they said to me, of which few people have heard, or at least many are unaware. For at the time when the present king was at La Rochelle, the late King Charles, who was given to the hunt as everyone knows, was so angry at his dogs and his huntsmen one night that you, Madame, who were present said to him: Come, my son, it would be better if you were angry at those who killed so many of your faithful servants at La Rochelle, and not at your huntsmen or your dogs.25 To which the king replied to Your Majesty: God’s death, Madame, who is the cause of this but you? By the blood of Christ you are the cause of it all. With that he left you, which greatly angered Your Majesty, and groaning and crying you left for your room. And, seeing some of your closest ladies, you said, “I have always said that I was dealing with a fool, and that I would never see the end of it.” Ever since that time, Madame, you sought every possible means to have him poisoned. This is what those two Catholics told me. Such that when you had to singular “day of treachery” presumably refers to the night the killings began, just after the murder of Gaspard de Coligny. 25. The siege of La Rochelle, a Protestant stronghold on the western coast of France, in 1572–73. After the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, the town citizens refused to pay taxes to the crown or admit entry to the royally appointed governor, the Catholic Armand de Gontaut, maréchal de Biron. Charles IX was determined to suppress the rebellion, and declared war on the city in November 1572. The future Henri III, then Duc d’Anjou, led the royal forces against the town in 1573. Henri left the campaign to assume the crown in Poland, and the siege ultimately failed. See Mack P. Holt, The Duke of Anjou and the Politique Struggle During the Wars of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 28–33.

222 Appendix conduct his brother, the King of Poland, to Metz, the king was warned by three great personages whom they named for me, that if His Majesty also went there, he would never return. And that they [CXVIII] had already prepared an Italianized morsel for him.26 He could easily believe this because the king [of Poland] his brother continued to delay his departure, which made His Majesty all the more fearful. Such that he ordered that one of the two of them must go to Poland, for that is what he had promised. Now that the King of Poland was resolved to leave, you, Madame, told him, “Go my son, go boldly and keep yourself always at the ready, and leave it to me to handle things: for you will not stay long.” And since that moment Your Majesty did so well that she won over the late sieur de la Tour, making him and others who supported you think that the late king your son wished to have him killed, so that he might more easily enjoy his wife. This de la Tour easily believed such words, all the more so since he knew very well that the king his master loved his wife. For this reason he promptly agreed to give poison to His Majesty. He set off immediately afterward for Anjou, so as not to be suspected of anything. They also said that His Majesty languished for quite a while after taking this medicine, and that afterward, Madame, you had the sieur de la Tour poisoned, as much to bring justice to his inhuman cruelty as to prevent him from disclosing in the future anything about such a cowardly act committed against the laws of nature. Indeed, Madame, so it is: nevertheless these two Catholics affirmed that there was nothing more true than this. The Catholics also said to me: And how are you able to trust a woman who has spared neither her own children nor those who served her well for so long? Remember the tragedy that she brought to the duc de Montmorency and the maréchal de Cossé, who, with the rest of their families, have rendered so many services to the crown.27 Do you think, they said to me, that you are more respected than either them or their house, which is the best connected in all of France? Rest assured that she asks nothing more than for the ruin of the entire monarchy, be it in general or in parts [CXIX]. Witness what she said to two duchesses, who said to her one day: Certainly, Madame, it is a great loss to see ruined in such a way the nobility of France and the entire people, as one now sees happening daily. For you could not have killed fifteen Huguenots without ten Catholics dying. These are still twenty-five Frenchmen. To which her Majesty replied: “O my cousin, do not worry about that. For there are enough people in Spain and Italy to populate France after there is no one left, for truly the 26. In other words, they were already prepared to poison him. 27. François, duc de Montmorency (1531–79) and his cousin Artus de Cossé-Brissac, comte de Secondigny (1512–82). In 1574, Catherine had them arrested on suspicion of supporting the duc d’Anjou et d’Alençon. Imprisoned at the Bastille, they were released in 1575 by Henri III and their innocence formally established by letters patent presented to Parlement. Catherine makes a humorous reference to the maréchal de Cossé in a 1579 letter to the duchesse d’Uzès (see letter 32).

Appendix 223 French are a wicked race. Now put your money there, I beseech you.” This is what they told me. They went on to say: Also, do you not know that some time before the late King Charles died, she sent 1,500,000 écus to Don Juan of Austria to bring his army close to the sea of Provence, so that if King Henri could not return from Poland, then this Juan would become viceroy of France?28 She promised him that if His Majesty died, she would make the monarchy fall into the hands of the King of Spain, seeking by this means to frustrate Monsieur le duc [d’Alençon] her son, showing by this her very good and loyal nature. As for the rest, they said to me, who does not believe, whether he be among you or among us, that if this good lady could do so much through her plots as to trap the prince de Condé and the maréchal de Damville, could she not also have both Monsieur le duc and the King of Navarre killed, and all the princes of the blood no matter their age or religion, along with all those of the house of Montmorency, even their kin and their allies?29 For she has planned to ruin entirely all those whom she knew to be truly sympathetic to the crown of France. This, they said, is how the majority of those who call themselves Frenchmen, but who are truly nothing but bastards, let themselves be led by the nose like an ox, against all divine and human order. Now, Madame, hearing such words, indeed [CXX] among many more prodigious ones beyond compare, I did not know how to respond, except to say that I did not believe it. But they began to say to me: Have you not heard of the payment that this chaste woman made to a poor unfortunate man, using the means of the late sieur de l’Aubespine, for killing the late sieur de Savigny, so-called bastard of the late King of Navarre?30 It is known that after the blow was dealt, and after having thanked him thoroughly for it, she told him that he should do all that l’Aubespine would tell him. L’Aubespine gave him an order, addressed to one of the lieutenants of the prévôt de l’hôtel, that he should receive 2,000 écus to arm and outfit himself, while awaiting an order at the border to ensure his safety. Believing 28. Don Juan of Austria (1547–78), illegitimate son of Charles V, King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, and half-brother of Philip II of Spain. 29. The reference is to the imprisonment of the princes François, duc d’Alençon et d’Anjou (younger brother of Henri III) and Henri de Bourbon, King of Navarre, after the death of Charles IX and before Henri III could return to France to ascend the throne. The DM was ostensibly written during this imprisonment as a way to incite the French nobility to seek (or force) the release of the prisoners. The duc d’Alençon et d’Anjou was at the time the leader of the moderate movement now conventionally known as the politiques; Catherine held him in the Louvre with Henri de Bourbon to forestall opposition to Henri III’s ascension. R. J. Knecht, The French Wars of Religion, 1559–1598 (New York: Longman, 1996), 61. 30. This is a reference to the murder of one Savigny, on the order of the sieur de l’Aubespine (Claude de l’Aubespine, baron de Châteauneuf); Savigny was connected in an apparent plot to murder Catherine. See the Mémoires et poésies de Jeanne d’Albret, ed. Alphonse de Ruble (Paris, 1893; pages xviii and 43–45).

224 Appendix himself already in paradise, for he had never before had anything worth 2,000 sols, the murderer presented himself to this lieutenant, who, having been told of the plot beforehand, had him strangled in his garde-robe and, once evening came, had him tossed into the water in a sack. This is the payment she makes to her servants. Also, Madame, they told me that about fifteen or sixteen months ago you sent all the way to Italy for a very renowned magician. After he told you several things that displeased you, you dismissed him, and made him a present of 2,000 écus and one of your good hackneys so that he might travel more comfortably. You gave him a guide with two horses who was charged by Your Majesty to lead him through the woods of Monceau to show him your house, and from there he should get rid of him. And that he should bring you back the 2,000 écus and the hackney, and that he would have 500 écus for his trouble. The wily fellow did all this willingly, for he was accustomed to execute similar enterprises often. Three or four days afterward, when the rumor came to court that the philosopher in question had been killed and robbed by brigands, Madame, you started to laugh, saying, “Upon my faith, he was a great fool: for he predicted what was going to happen to himself.” [CXXI] Madame, they also told me that it was certain that Your Majesty had bartered with someone named the sieur Camille, with the sieur de Charon, and with several others to have monsieur the prince de Condé poisoned or killed. Also, that you employed several men of all sorts to have monsieur the maréchal de Damville poisoned or killed. They also told me, Madame, that you had allowed atheism to be preached in several of the court’s quarters, and that when the blind man who was a priest and sorcerer was burned in Paris, he confessed before the leaders of those who interrogated him that, of his entire legion of followers, a legion, indeed, of which he was the colonel general in Satan’s absence, it was you, Madame, who were the first to enroll. They told me this and other things so execrable and so horrible that I have lost all heart and courage to ever enter into France, until it pleases God to render me so fortunate as to make me, for once in my life, one of the captains of your guard. Then you can be assured, Madame, that Your Majesty will be well guarded, if ever a princess was, even if she were the Queen of Scots.31 For I have always been, I am yet, and I will ever be most faithful (with the grace of my God) to all those men and women to whom I promise my fidelity. And while awaiting the golden era of this fortunate day, I will pray to God whom I have served, whom I serve yet, and whom I will serve forever, that by His grace and goodness He seek to redeem you. Written the 11th day of the 12th month of the 4th year after the day of treachery. 31. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, had been imprisoned in England by Elizabeth I since 1568. The reference is a veiled threat—the author would “guard her as well as the Queen of Scots,” i.e., imprison her.

Appendix 225

An Alarm for the French and Their Neighbors. Composed by Eusèbe Philadelphe Cosmopolite, in the Form of Dialogues, Selections32 Letter translated into French from a Latin book dedicated to the Estates, princes, lords, barons, noblemen, and the Polish people, by Eusèbe Philadelphe, Cosmopolite (a.vi. rº) Suppose you are deprived of a king, not able to simply live under the law and under reason its soul, not wishing to commit yourself to the rule of one among you. The French have provided you with a king of their nation (if he is indeed a French son: for regarding his mother you know that she is and will be a Florentine33), and for having raised you and provided you with a king they can oblige you to them in some way, as it is very reasonable that one be obliged to the nation and the house that provides them. You will never be as much obliged to the French as the old Israelites to Isaiah’s house for David, Solomon, Josiah, and other similar good kings whom they have received of good stock … .

Copy of a letter written to the duc de Guise by a noble, whose name has not been discovered (b.iii. vº) Monseigneur, as a handwritten copy has recently fallen into my hands, titled An Alarm for the French, in Dialogue Form, and as I have well considered the discourse and communications that Eusèbe Philadelphe, who calls himself the author, had held with his interlocutors, it seemed to me that I could not do less, as my duty, than to send it to you by this present noble porter and to tell you about it, which I think is expedient for the greatness of your house, and the good of your service. I 32. Lead translator: Katherine Kong. Le Reveille-matin des francois, et de leurs voisins. Composé par Eusebe Philadelphe Cosmopolite, en forme de Dialogues. A Edimbourg, De l’imprimerie de Jaques James. Avec permission. 1574. Page and folio numbers from this edition, indicating the beginning of each passage, are given in parentheses. “Eusèbe Philadelphe” is a pseudonym; the work is often attributed to Nicholas Barnaud, and sometimes in collaboration with Théodore de Bèze. The imprint, as well, is pseudonymous; see The Bibliographer’s Manual of English Literature (new ed., revised and expanded, in 6 vols., London, 1865) Vol. 4, p. 1849, and V.S.’s review of François Ritter’s Histoire de l’imprimerie alsacienne aux xve et xvie siècles (1955) in The Library, 5th ser., 11, no. 4 (1956), p. 294. 33. “[S]i toutesfois il est fils de François: car de sa mere vous scavez qu’elle est et sera Florentine.” It is noteworthy that in this first mention of Catherine she is unnamed, and the description casts aspersions on her son’s nationality: her Florentine birth taints the blood and identity of the king and calls into question whether he is a true “French son.” The phrase could also be translated “if he is the son of a Frenchman,” suggesting that Catherine’s Florentine character has led to her licentiousness.

226 Appendix do not doubt, sir, that some Huguenot, angered over the massacres carried out on his brothers (as they are called), has drafted this copy. I do not doubt further that he desires the overthrow of the house of Valois, about which I see him, without flattering or dissimulating anything, saying all that he knows of their life and their form of government. It has been so long that this house of Valois has occupied so fair a kingdom, that it devours it instead of governing it. It destroys and ruins it, instead of edifying and building it up. The hearts of the nobility and of the people, moreover, are greatly alienated from this house and very strongly embittered against its conduct. They are on the other hand so devoted to you, and so well disposed toward your house, that it seems indeed that there was never one so fine as it is now.

Dialogism34 on the Effigy of Peace. The Polish Man. The Valois Peace. … (b.viii. rº) Valois Peace: I am not as you think me to be. I am the peace that Charles established in France Of whom I am the sister, bastard like him, The most loyal of men today. Polish man: Truly you have a traitorous brother. But tell me, who was your father. Valois Peace: My father was a devil dis-Guised35 Beneath the habit of a supposed priest He was a deadly monster, all vice, Disturber of the peace, sty of avarice, With which this noble Whore warmed herself. The infected blood of the sodomites of Italy Raised on the milk of a horrible Fury That a Pope attached to the neck of the Valois And hid in the bosom of our kings To nurse there the lighted spark By which France would one day be wholly consumed Cause of evils, seed of misfortunes! … (c. vº)

34. “Dialogisme,” a discourse in which one argues with oneself as if speaking to another, both asking questions and providing answers; see Randle Cotgrave’s 1611 A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues (London: Adam Islip, 1611), http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cotgrave/. 35. This is an obvious pun in French: “des-guisé,” disguised, but also of the Guises.

Appendix 227 Peace: Let me [seek vengeance], just as we will see by their hand Mother, and children, and the Tyrant’s brood themselves seek out vengeance. Pol:

Whatever the case, you must restrain yourself: For you will be able to become a better And true peace one day, perhaps.

Peace:

Do not believe that I will ever be sure: As long as one sees the house of Valois Falsify faith, and mock laws: The false edicts of an enslaved parlement of a cardinal, a conclave’s ornament;36 As long as the council be composed of monsters, A chimera, a crafty keeper of the Seal; Those whose God is but the state and the belly, Will hold in their hand the rudder of France: As long as Italy reigns in France, As long as France flees France As long as we see the Florentine sorceress Served by a cleric and coiffed with a net,37 And as long the harlot has her stallions, A devil in the belly, a priest at her heels.

First Dialogue. Interlocutors: Alithie,38 Philalithie,39 The Historiographer, the Political Man, the Church, Daniel40 … (18) Alithie: I am content to tell you that the queen mother, who is a curious person, had interrogated Nostradamus (who meddled in predicting the future) regarding what would happen to her children.41 After hearing that she 36. A conclave is a secret meeting or room, especially the private room in which Roman Catholic cardinals assemble to elect a new pope; by extension it refers to the election process itself. 37. “Coiffé d’un Retz”: a play on Catherine’s counselor, Albert de Gondi, the maréchal de Retz. 38. “C’est à dire la verité,” 1. 39. Philalithie, “love of truth,” is identified as the friend of Alithie (“son amy”), but unlike Alithie’s, his name not translated in the text. 40. Biblical prophet. 41. Michel de Nostradamus (1503–66), regarded by contemporaries as a prophet, and appointed royal councilor and physician to Charles IX. R.J. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici (New York: Addison Wesley, 1998), 106, 221.

228 Appendix would see all three of them kings, she believed too much in his words, and feared that if this were to happen she would be sent back to Florence to see her family and friends. Not knowing which way to turn (as she saw the strength of the Estates suppressed for a while and Salic law,42 which affected the government and which had fallen under the distaff,43 violated) she thought that for the succession of the kingdom she could very well do the following. She promised and swore to the Duke of Alba that she would make the French crown fall on the head of her eldest daughter and as a result the King of Spain, to make him her good patron and supporter in case her children died.44 But the Duke of Alba, who could not take her word for it lightly, asked, in order to confirm it, that the queen mother promise him then to undo the edict of pacification, and remove from the Huguenots all that they had of liberty of conscience and exercise of religion, for the best proof of her good will toward Spain, to the detriment of France.45 The queen did this willingly.

… (82) The Political Man: … more than two months before the killings in Paris,46 the queen mother had sent to Strozzi a letter written in her own hand, sealed well, forbidding him by another letter that he received earlier, not to open that one, until the 24th day of August.47 The words of the letter that Strozzi opened August 24th were: Strozzi, I warn you that this day the 24th of August, the admiral and all the Huguenots that were here with him have been killed. Leave diligently advised to make yourself master of La Rochelle, and do to the Huguenots that will fall into your hands the same that we have done with these. Mind that you do not fail in this, as you fear displeasing the king, monsieur my son, and myself. 42. See our discussion of Salic law in the introduction to this volume. 43. “Quenouille,” a distaff; taken to mean the female line in a succession. 44. Elisabeth de Valois, eldest daughter of Catherine de Médicis and Henri II, was married to Philip II of Spain. Fernando Alvarez of Toledo, Duke of Alba (1507–82), was Philip II’s viceroy in Naples and elsewhere. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 48. 45. The 1573 Edict of Pacification, also known as the Edict of Boulogne and the Peace of La Rochelle, was similar to the Edict of Saint Germain, but treated only the religious privileges of nobility. La Rochelle, a city in western France under Huguenot control, had been besieged by Catholic troops, including the duc d’Anjou; the immediate goal of the edict was to lift the siege so that he could assume the Polish throne, to which he had just been elected. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici, 166–68, 290. 46. The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres; see our introduction. 47. See the notes on Strozzi in our translation of Brantôme’s “Second Discourse on the Queen, Mother of Our Last Kings, Catherine de Médicis.”

Appendix 229 And below this was her signature: Catherine.

First Dialogue. Interlocutors: Alithie, Philalithie, The Historiographer, the Political Man, the Church, Daniel … (96) The Political Man: As for me and many of my friends (good French Catholics, I assure you), we see the disloyalty and bizarreries of the king (since it is necessary that I speak of it) together with those of his council, composed of an Italian Florentine woman from the house of Medici, pensioners of the King of Spain, pensioners and creatures of the pope, Italians, people from Lorraine,48 and no others, and evil without remedy. We fear lest tomorrow or the next day they do to us what they did to the Huguenots, if by chance it should strike the king’s fancy, or that of his chief counselors who wish us harm, as they do those who know their plans and plots, and are concerned for the good of France. We fear, I say, lest they suddenly blame us, as those who wish to hang their dog usually pretend he is mad, and lest they conduct our trial after our execution, as they did with the admiral:49 we preferred to leave early, rather than stay too long. … (124) The Historiographer: …[Catherine] was greatly offended by a certain rhyme that discussed Queens Fredegund and Brunhilda, and Jezebel and Catherine, and that showed her to be worse than Jezebel ever was, because she always believed that these good offices were done to her by the Huguenots.50 I will recite to you the verses: If France pure of laws, Full of equity and justice, 48. This is a reference to the Guises. 49. The admiral, Gaspard de Coligny; see our introduction. 50. Fredegund was one of the wives of the sixth-century Frankish king, Chilperic. Her reputation has largely been colored by Gregory of Tours’s account of her as a murderess; see Edward James, The Franks (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 16. Brunhilda (or Brunehaut) was the wife of the sixth-century Frankish king Sigibert I of Metz; she has also been attributed with murderous designs. After Sigibert’s death, Brunhilda served as regent for her son, grandsons, and great-grandson: Edward James, The Franks, 173, and Steven Fanning, “Brunhilde,” in Medieval France: An Encyclopedia, ed. William W. Kibler and Grover A. Zinn (New York: Garland, 1995), 152–53. Catherine is compared extensively to Brunhilda in the Discours merveilleux. Jezebel appears in the Old Testament as Queen of Israel, was married to Ahab, and is associated with blasphemy, disobedience, and wickedness. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. “Jezebel,” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/303679/Jezebel.

230 Appendix Suffered all at once Ruin and undoing By Queen Fredegund Debasing51 the French world With her infected Landry, If she has been in effect Trampled by Brunhilda, Jezebel who was not worth less And Catherine’s stallion Gondi52 Who with a single leap bounded Higher than any of our princes, Why, now that there is no law in our provinces, Nor custom that prevails, Now that there is no faith Nor Estates that preserve them, Will they not ravage With oppression and carnage? Speak, those who wish to speak As long as Jezebel wishes, But why do I say Jezebel, I mean to say Catherine Who built the great tower of Babel Confusion and ruin Of the house of Valois As you see In the four corners of France And who is a thousand times worse, As you will hear me say, 51. The original French, “mastiner,” connotes dilution of bloodlines—and, by extension, implies adultery and illegitimacy: “to line, as a bitch with a mastiff ”; also, to use filthily or handle rudely. See Cotgrave’s Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues, as cited above, and the Dictionnaire de L’Académie française (1st ed., 1694). Couching insult to Catherine in the register of bloodlines reveals how her low birth—on her father’s side, at least—provoked a number of different kinds of anxiety, and particularly an uneasiness regarding her origins and her maternity. 52. Gondi: see note 37 above. The allusion to “Landry” is likely a reference to Landeric, or Landry of Tours, alleged lover of Fredegund; see Ian Wood, “Deconstructing the Merovingian Family,” in The Construction of Communities in the Early Middle Ages: Texts, Resources and Artefacts,  ed. Richard Corradini, Maximilian Diesenberger, and Helmut Reimitz (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 164, and James Mitchell, A Dictionary of Universal History, Chronology, and Historical Biography: Compiled from the Latest and Best Authorities (London: Sir Richard Phillips and Company, 1823), 176.

Appendix 231 Than ever was Jezebel, Whether this is true, the facts are thus.

Similarities between the life of Catherine and Jezebel, and the differences in their deaths53 If we seek the similarities Between Catherine and Jezebel, The one the ruin of Israel, The other the ruin of France: Jezebel maintained idols Contrary to holy writ The other upholds the papacy, By treason and cruelty; The one embodied extreme malice, The other is malice itself; By one were massacred Prophets sacred to God, The other had killed 100,000 Of those who follow the gospel; Jezebel for her own benefit Had an honest man killed, The other is not satisfied Unless she has both his possessions and his life. In the end the judgment was such, Dogs ate Jezebel, By a divine vengeance;54 Catherine’s stinking carcass Will be different on this count: Even the dogs won’t want any of it. … (127) The Political Man: I leave you to consider of what nature her children can be, who were nourished with her milk, and raised by her hand. And on this, 53. This poem also appears in the 1576 edition of the Discours merveilleux, and in other places; it was clearly publicized widely. 54. As foretold by the prophet Elijah; this resonates with the reference to Elijah in the “Copy of Letters Sent to the Queen Mother,” above, and suggests the usefulness and popularity of biblical references in anti-Catherine calumny.

232 Appendix remark the grievous error made by those who had the power to provide for them after the death of King Henri, who instead of taking possession of them (to have instilled in them all virtues) left authority over them to her, to make examples of them of disloyalty and execration. And for the height of all misfortune, she made them instruments of their own ruin, and that of the state and the crown from which she has received so much honor.

Appendix 233

The Tocsin, against the Slaughterers and Perpetrators of Confusion in France (1577), Selections55 (5) Now before coming to the particular story about the cruelty that has been committed up to this point, we must first show how Catherine has been the source and origin of all the misfortunes that have travailed France for a long time … . To get to the point, we can say that all the destruction that we have seen in France since the death of King Henri [Henri II] comes from nowhere other than the bad government, conduct, and counsel of the queen mother of the king, who, abusing the youth of her children to satisfy her own uncontained ambition and delights, not only failed to give them a good education that would render them capable in the future of leading virtuously in a beautiful, rich, and flowering kingdom, but also prevented them from being otherwise better instructed. She prefers to command in the name of the king who is either completely ignorant or in a rage, rather than stay in her place as mother, under the absolute authority of a wise and virtuous king. And what augments her faults even more is that she was born in an age embellished by so many wise and prudent men, especially since the evangelical light began to spread its reason in France. Such that she never lacked for good counsel and warnings both orally and in writing (for everyone worked to employ his industry to trace and depict for her the morals of a good prince) so that she could attempt to fashion the king and his brothers on the model of so many good examples, notably those that conformed to the word of God. But instead of doing this, she cared about nothing but her own particular affections and to maintain her usurpation of the entire kingdom, using simply time and every occasion that presented itself to her to arrive at her goals. Such that the late vidame de Chartres56 (albeit a man who was given to his own pleasures, but who was nevertheless quite clairvoyant in matters of the court), while extremely ill in prison after he was put

55. Lead translator: Leah L. Chang. Le Tocsain, contre les massacreurs et auteurs des confusions en France. Par lequel, la source & origine de tous les maux, qui de long tems travaillent la France est descouverte … (Reims: Jean Martin, 1577; 1579). This translation is based on the 1579 imprint held in the Gordon Collection, University of Virginia. Parenthetical page numbers indicate the beginning of each selection. Italicized explanations of the content in brackets are not in the original and are our addition. The author of the text is unknown. Although the Tocsain was printed in 1577, the printer’s notice suggests that it was composed just after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres. Indeed, the text itself accuses Catherine, on p. 56, of having embroiled the country in three civil wars, which was the case at the time of the 1572 massacres. By 1577, the country had already witnessed three additional official wars. 56. Jean II de Ferrières, vidame de Chartres (1520–86), was a Protestant nobleman. He was present at the wedding of Henri de Bourbon and Marguerite de Valois, but managed to escape the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres and flee to England. He was captured during a military campaign in which he fought for the Protestants alongside Henri of Navarre in 1586, and died in prison.

234 Appendix there by the Guise faction, rightly pronounced the following words shortly before his death, in a rather vulgar rhythm, but nonetheless too true: Catherine the Florentine Is of France the ruin Catherine of Florence Is the ruin of France. As he had already repeated this several times and had been admonished to stop (especially as it was believed that pain was forcing these words from his mouth in a sort of delirium), he responded that he knew very well what he was saying, and was not too ill to remember to weep for the misfortunes in which he saw France embroiled by a foreign and trouble-making woman … . Let us believe at least what her uncle, Pope Clement de Medici, had to say, who, seeing her marriage to King Henri settled, said that the house of France had committed several wrongs to that of the Medici in the past. But that he hoped his niece would avenge these wrongs. Which we have experienced as too true, to our great misfortune, as she has never been concerned with how things were going as long as she could dominate. In which she has shown an extreme ingratitude both to God and to France for the honor that she had received, seeing herself pulled from a trifling family of low birth, and raised up to reign in such a flowering state, where moreover everyone knows that she has welcomed several Florentines who are her relatives, who, for all they have paid out, cannot boast of getting anything other than the cap and the sword, and whom she has attempted to enrich through exactions, confiscations, taxations, and immense donations. Even though it is great luck to arrive at such a rank from such an inferior condition, and, as Cicero once said, it is better to be the founder of a dynasty than the last of the line. [On Catherine’s maternity] (33) It was to be feared that, as he came of age, the king [Charles IX] would recognize the ruin that threatened his kingdom by his mother’s own poor housekeeping and prevent her from continuing to interfere. This is why she was determined to nourish him in all luxurious delights, such as dancing, hunting, the masque, and several other vainglorious and ridiculous exercises that were also dishonorable and unworthy of his person. Such that, with the mind of this young prince distracted by his follies, she continued all the more to seize control of important affairs. This is how she has abused the graces of God, who enriched her with several children even though when, early on, as she believed herself to be sterile, she had often turned to the prayers of the Reformed Church which at that time was secret,

Appendix 235 so that she could beget children with every promise of nourishing them in her fear of God and all the seemly virtues of Christian princes. On the contrary, she was not satisfied with having engendered them unhealthy and subject to diverse infirmities, thanks to her daily habits in which she has always been so excessive that there are very few months when she is not constrained to stay in bed (not a very honorable thing for a queen, and one from Italy by the way, where sobriety is somewhat advised). Thus she also sought to completely corrupt their minds through a poor education, never considering what a good fortune it is for the people to have princes who: Have the body clothed in health, And the sound mind adorned in virtue. In short, she has nourished these princes with so little respect for the honor of God and for the rank that she held, that a rogue servant over whom honor frequently has no command would be ashamed to do the same with regard to his own children. She has never considered the duty of a virtuous mother nor the obligations she had in this regard: given that a good education is as preferable to the nourishing of the body as heaven surpasses and surmounts the earth, which is inferior to it, just as the body is inferior to the soul. Certainly Socrates, who was considered vile and mocked because of his physical appearance, but known for his almost irreproachable ways, responded that indeed his nature would have been just as ugly had the study of philosophy not changed him. Such that, if a vicious nature can be bettered through good instruction, how much more so when there is a good foundation, such as, we confess, there was in these young princes, for whom the earliest years could have demonstrated the same good traits that appeared in the young Themistocles if like him they had been nourished in good letters and made to follow the example of illustrious and virtuous men.57 Now, if it takes a cruel mother to not provide for the bodily nourishment of her children, what kind of barbarity is it to leave them without instruction, especially when it concerns the person of the king, on whose morals everyone should model himself? This is why the ancients required that he who ruled over all others be the best of all … . (37) But the queen preferred to have a son as king who had no knowledge of how to rule from his own seat, rather than to rest easy under the conduct of a wise and virtuous king. In this she badly imitated the mother of Tiberius Gracchus, who 57. Themistocles (ca. 524–ca. 459 BCE), Athenian political leader, who helped Athens become the greatest naval power in Greece. He was later accused of supporting the Persians and was forced into exile in Persia.

236 Appendix took the trouble to teach him eloquence, from which he profited so well that he surpassed all others of his time.58 And she did not follow the example of Zenobia, queen of the Palmirsiens (a woman well versed in the philosophy of the Greeks and the Egyptians), who instructed her two children, Timolaus and Herennianus, in good letters.59 But what need is there of more good examples, given that most of the first Roman emperors, up until the flowering of the republic, were extremely learned … . (39) But perhaps the queen considered it unworthy of a King of France to be learned in letters, and contented herself with instructing him in good morals and honest exercises. Let us look for a bit at the “good morals” with which she sought to enrich him and the “somber teachings” that he received with this handsome education. First of all, there was hunting. This is not in itself indecent for a king, given that such exercise serves not only his health, but can also make a man more dexterous in handling a horse. Daring to oppose the fury of wild beasts can make him more courageous against an enemy, or ready to devise strategies of war, which is also necessary to use to surprise such beasts. But here is where the hunting became excessive: she made him too zealous in it, given that, besides the danger to his person which he regularly risked when hunting, under the peril of the woods and beasts with so few companions, and given the loss of time that could have been better spent, this greatly served to keep the queen in her usurped authority, and subjected the king to great criticism. For while he was continuously occupied by the hunt, many important things happened where his presence was required, whether to give orders or to learn and become more dexterous in matters of state. Such that, knowing his affection for the hunt, whenever some important affair presented itself which the queen wanted either to keep to herself or at least to be the first to give her opinion, she would find a way to keep the king from court, by having a third party (for fear he might be suspicious) tell him about some good hunting in a forest far away, to entice him to go and run the fields while she heard the information and, if necessary, suppressed it, or had him told only as much as was expedient for her purposes, that is, for the ruin of the king and his kingdom.

58. Tiberius Gracchus (ca. 163–133 BCE), Roman plebian politician who attempted to reform agrarian laws, much to the dismay of the landowning class. He was ultimately assassinated. He was raised by his mother, Cornelia, who was the daughter of the renowned statesman and military commander, Scipio Africanus. 59. Zenobia (ca. 240–274 CE), was Queen of Palmyra, located in Roman Syria. She declared the city’s independence from Rome, led a revolt against the empire, and attempted to expand her kingdom into Egypt.

Appendix 237 (43) There were also dances and masques, which no one can deny are a true instrument of pimpery and the path to bawdiness, especially if one takes into account the corrupt morals of the courtesans, who make it their task to please the noblemen at court with little respect for the commandments of God. Nevertheless, this is one of the exercises in which the queen nourished her sons: and yet they profited so poorly from it that they acquired such skills with very little grace. [Examples of Catherine’s sons’ corruption] (47) Here, even though we would rather not admit that it happened or even know about it, we have to report that one day, the duc d’Anjou shut himself up abruptly in his chamber with a whore whom someone had brought to court. When he refused to open the door for others, the king, with great effort, took a bench in his hands to break down the door with the help of the duc de Guise, during which he wounded himself in the thigh. Then, they abused in every which way this shameful woman. We would be almost horrified to speak of this example, if it were not that every Frenchman knows how they have committed even worse and more monstrous acts, especially the duc d’Anjou, who, not being satisfied by the hard work of Villequier, Du Halde, Du Mas, and others among his regular pimps, has frequently had women taken by force and brought to him.60 [On Catherine’s Machiavellianism] (54) The queen had her sons instructed in precepts that were more appropriate to a tyrant than to a virtuous king, teaching them not only the stupid tales of Perceforest, but above all the treatises of that atheist Machiavelli, whose goal was to teach the prince to make himself feared rather than loved, and to reign with pomp, rather than to reign well.61 In fact, one could very well call his book the queen mother’s gospel. For although she veils herself with the commonly received religion, we see in effect that she only does so as much as she thinks necessary to keep 60. The reference is to three favorites of Henri III, all gentlemen of the king’s chamber. René de Villequier, baron de Clairvaux, the best known of the three, accompanied Henri III to Poland. R. J. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici (London: Addison Wesley, 1998), 176; Nicola Sutherland, The French Secretaries of State in the Age of Catherine de Medici (London: Athlone Press, 1962), 320. 61. “Perceforest” refers to six books of prose and poetry written during the second half of the fourteenth century, which treat the prehistory of Britain. According to the narrative, Alexander the Great left Perceforest as commander of Britain before his return to Babylon. The narrative then follows Perceforest’s adventures in Britain. See Denyse Delcourt, “Magie, fiction et phantasme dans le ‘Roman de Perceforest’: Pour une poétique de l’illusion au Moyen Age,” Romanic Review 85, no. 2 (1994), 167.

238 Appendix herself in power. Her principal counselor, Morriliers, always has this handsome and Christian book in hand to instruct his mistress, and abandons it no more than Alexander abandoned his Homer.62 In sum, it seems quite possible that this tyrannical institution was conceived in part from this book and that the queen gleaned her principal artifices from it to persuade the king that, notwithstanding all promises of peace and friendship, and even ties of consanguinity, he could avenge himself furiously of all those that he esteemed to be his enemies, taking any light suspicion (if one can call a “suspicion” a calumny invented at whim) as sufficient proof: in brief, defending himself in this guise with cruelty, rather than earning through gentleness the friendship and goodwill of his subjects. In this way he soils his name and his memory forever, and is forced to harbor a conscience that trembles and fears not only God’s judgment, which even the most profane can feel, but also those who have been injured by him. [On the corruption of Charles’s nature] (55) Here is the source of another detestable vice, cruel and inhuman, in which he has stumbled and which has led him to commit the dreadful massacre that has recently come to pass.63 Which he never would have committed, according to those who are the most well informed, without the violence done to his nature, which in the beginning was gentle. For this woman, seeing that in his youth he was of a tender spirit, and thus unable to act upon his passions, endeavored to make him bloodthirsty and violent, either by witnessing animal fights, which he was often shown and in which he sometimes was made to participate, or by making him the spectator of the countless massacres of his subjects since the beginning of the three civil wars that she has set upon us.64 Moreover, he is not the first prince whose nature has thus been hideously changed. For Nero, who surpassed all other emperors in villainy, showed signs of a very great gentleness at the beginning of his reign.65 In fact, when he was presented with execution orders to sign according to custom, he frequently wept and said that he wished he could not write, so much did he regret having anyone killed. But in the end, he became like a savage and enraged beast, forgetting all consanguinity and friendship. At the start of his em62. Alexander the Great (356–323 BCE), son of Philip II of Macedonia, best known for his military conquests and expansion of the Macedonian empire, which reached from Egypt to India at the time of Alexander’s death. 63. Note that the text accuses Charles explicitly of ordering the massacre. 64. As per note 55 above, the dating evoked here—after three civil wars—places the composition of the text, or at least its narration, just after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres. 65. Nero (37–68 CE), last of the Julio-Claudian emperors, whose reign is associated with tyranny and excess. He committed suicide in the face of assassination.

Appendix 239 pire, Domitian showed such signs of gentleness that he avoided passing by places where human blood had been spilled. But that did not last very long. For soon afterward he had an infinite number of men killed whose land and possessions he also wrongly took, using false witnesses who claimed he had been designated heir by those from whom he stole. Caligula lived quite happily for a while, such that, after ultimately being overthrown, the following saying was circulated: that there had never been an emperor who had been so good or so cruel as he. Commodus did hardly less, changing his gentle and debonair nature into an almost brutal fury, such that, contrary to his name, he was rightly nicknamed “Incommodus.” Antonius Caracalla was taught by his father, Severus, all sorts of morals that were considered good at the time. But once he was made emperor, he gave himself over to every malice, especially spilling blood, and soiling the empire with filth and floods.66 This is what has become of the King of France, whose youth demonstrated such a portrait of unbelievable gentleness that even if he simply heard of some outrage, he could barely contain his sighs, or even keep from crying. But not having been raised to fear God, and having been fed on blood and vengeance, especially against his own subjects, he has ultimately come so unraveled at this point, that he has committed such an act [the massacre] in which one cannot easily say whether disloyalty has surpassed cruelty, or the other way around. [On Catherine as one of the principal causes of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres] (160) One might say that it is not possible for the king to have caused such havoc as he only sought to kill the highest ranking nobles of the party. All the same, since the slaughter continued for such a long time, there is no excuse for this pretense. Moreover, he has often assured the pope that he sought through this to restore the Catholic Church to its former state and splendor, and to banish from his kingdom all those who are of the contrary religion, with the promise to pursue them by blood and by steel until they are all exterminated. But because he wrote exactly the opposite to the Protestant princes, not daring to confess that they had been massacred because of their religion but rather that he treated his subjects so inhumanely because of their rebellion, and because we see that there is no constancy in his promises, let us briefly say what not only seems to be the truth 66. Examples of tyrannical and cruel Roman emperors, all of whom were assassinated. Domitian (51–96 CE) was known for his ruthlessness, and ultimately killed by court officials; the Roman senate ordered his rule to be effectively erased from cultural memory. Caligula (12–41 CE), whose reign was also marked by cruelty, was assassinated by members of the Praetorian Guard after ruling for four years. The reign of Commodus (161–192 CE) is known as one of violence and excess; he was murdered in a conspiracy orchestrated among his mistress, praetorian prefect, and chamberlain. Caracalla (188– 217 CE), known for cruelty and rashness, launched numerous military campaigns against Germanic tribes and Persia in an effort to imitate Alexander the Great, and was ultimately assassinated.

240 Appendix but is indeed quite certain: that the queen, seeing that the Protestant nobles had for the most part stood their ground against her enterprises during three civil wars, and persuading herself that they would always be her enemies, thought to exterminate them, and with them all those who professed to be of the Reformed religion, for fear lest they assist those nobles …; to tell the truth, she preferred to do away cruelly with those whom she held to be her enemies by abusing the tempestuousness of a young prince to do so, rather than try to win over her enemies through friendship and good deeds. For she had learned this tyrannical lesson from her Machiavelli, namely that it is better for a prince to maintain his state through cruelty than through gentleness, and that he should have no fear of ridding himself not only of those who are openly his enemies but also those who merely seem suspicious because of their opinions and dexterity.

Appendix 241

Oration Given at the Funeral Rites of the Queen Mother of the King by Monsieur Renaud de Beaune, Selections67 February 4, 1589 Per hominem mors, per hominem resurrectio; et sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes vivificabuntur.68 These words are written in the first letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, chapter XV. [498] You, Christian souls, who attend this wretched spectacle of the common misery of humankind, and you who justly mourn and cry for the loss of such a great queen, mother of so many kings and queens, so noble, so virtuous and good, and who was still so useful and necessary to our king her son and to the entire kingdom, raise your eyes to heaven, look at the author of life and the destroyer of death, the Lord of the living and the dead, who holds the key to heaven and to hell, to whom all life and resurrection belongs: look to Him so that, consoled in Him and through Him, fortified in your tears and lamentations, you may join your wishes and prayers with those of the Church to entreat God for the eternal repose of this devout soul, and, through the example of her life, you may learn to die well, in order to hope for immortal life after this earthly one. To this end, let us be succored by the intervention and intercession of the most sacred mother of Christ, mother and intercessor for mothers, widows, and orphans; let it please her to console this poor soul and all of us who mourn her death. Let us present to her this holy salutation by which she was made mother of the Son of God, and say to her: Ave Maria. [501] … When it pleases God to afflict His people for their sins, often horrible death takes away the best people, the most useful and necessary to humankind, while the evil are left alive. 67. Lead translator: Leah L. Chang. Oraison funebre faicte aux obseques de la Royne, Mère du Roy, par, Messire Regnault de Beaune, patriarche et archevesque de Bourges, primat d’Aquitaine, en presence du Roy, de la Royne, de Madame la princesse de Lorraine, des princes de Bourbon, cardinaux, ambassadeurs, prelats et autres seigneurs et dames, à Blois, le IIIIe jour de fevrier 1589. A Bloys, Pour Jamet Mettayer, imprimeur du Roy, et P. L’Huillier, librere juré, 1589, avec privilèege du Roy. The text of the oration is also reprinted in Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, vol. 9 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1905), ed. Gustave Baguenault de Puchesse. Page numbers from this edition are given in brackets and indicate the starting page of each passage. 68. 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall live.”

242 Appendix We realize this has come to pass, to our great misfortune in this kingdom, by the just judgment of God who, because of the faults and iniquities of the people of France (I do not dare to call them His people, because the people have forgotten their God in all sorts of ways), has taken from us such a great and virtuous queen. She was still so useful, even necessary in the great perturbation and confusion of affairs in this state, which she has so often provided for, and has resolved and commanded affairs so well in such sad and calamitous times that several times she brought order to this kingdom, against the expectations of almost everyone. And now, at the moment of the clear presage of this empire’s decadence, at the moment of so many diverse and dangerous uprisings, this death has taken from us this beautiful token of our God’s grace, of our king’s consolation, of the reconciliation and union of all the orders of this state, of the repose and tranquility of all France. Humble your hearts before God, you who are true Frenchmen, recognize that you have lost the most virtuous queen, the noblest in race and lineage, the most excellent in honor, the most chaste among all women, the most prudent in her government, the most gentle in her conversation, the most affable and benign to all those who sought to approach her, the most humble and charitable toward her children, the most obedient to her husband. But above all, the most devout toward God, and, toward the poor, the most affectionate queen who ever reigned in France! Her race and lineage on her father’s side is from this great house of Medici, one of the most noble and illustrious not only of Italy but of all Christendom.69 She was a foreigner on this side, since the alliances of great kings cannot usually be made within their kingdoms.70 Nevertheless, the house of Medici was almost always allied and confederated with the crown of France whose fleur de lys it still bears, which King Louis [XI] gave to this house as a sign of alliance and perpetual confederation. But on her mother’s side, she descended from one of the most noble and ancient houses of France, issue of the house and blood of France, a true Frenchwoman in race and still more in heart and disposition, descended from this great and illustrious house of Boulogne and the counts of Auvergne. Their greatness is such that I cannot say of which I should speak more, nor judge from which of the two houses there comes more grandeur or more deeds worthy of memory.

69. As in the Discours merveilleux and in Brantôme, the word “race” signifies “inheritance” and “lineage” rather than modern ethnic and racial notions, although the Discours merveilleux does suggest that Italians, and particularly Florentines, can be distinguished by certain inherited traits that they pass from one generation to the next. 70. In other words, that kings do not or cannot usually marry their subjects.

Appendix 243 [504] This queen, most high and illustrious princess, Catherine de Médicis, was born in the year 1519, the 13th of April, in the city of Florence, during the time of Pope Leo X, the great-uncle of our queen. She was the daughter of the Duke of Urbino, Lorenzo de Medici, head of this most illustrious house and family of Medici, and of Madeleine de Boulogne, issue of the blood of France. Her mother died of childbirth shortly after she was born, and the Duke of Urbino, her father, died immediately after her birth, from a fever that came upon him suddenly. Pope Leo died soon after, such that this little girl, destined to great things, was left in the hands of God and in the care of her aunts and relatives, nourished in her infancy and youth in every piety and saintly deed, in religious places, as if to be dedicated and consecrated to God. And from this good nourishment, the love and fear of God and devotion to his service was so imprinted in her heart that she continued in her holy prayers throughout her life until her death. She was assiduous in the service of the Church, habitually taking the sacrament of penitence and confession, receiving God during all the holy feasts of our Lord and of our Lady. And those who knew her privately have remarked that she never went to bed without completing her service to the Church, a notable example of piety left to our king, who is so pious, and to posterity, and to all queens and princes. This should be noted since it was from this holy devotion to God that grandeur, honor, favor, and benediction came to her from God in this kingdom. For, having lived through several moments of hazard, fortune, and calamity that afflicted her family, and as she was in danger of her life during her youth, it is not surprising that God recognized her afflictions, and that He comes to those whom He loves from their childhood and youth. He sometimes, even miraculously, raises them to the highest degree of honor. We see that Moses, His beloved from birth, abandoned and exposed, either to be drowned or devoured by beasts along the shores of the Nile, was afterward made the head of a great people, renowned through so many miracles. We read about Joseph, cruelly thrown into a cave by his brothers, at the point of being killed, abandoned to the beasts, sold to the Ishmaelites, then raised to such great honor by the Pharaoh, who made all the people recognize and honor him like the Pharaoh himself, who had him seated on his throne and in his chariot of gold next to him. After she had thus passed all her early adversities, by the grace of God, Pope Clement VII, her other uncle, who came to the papal seat after the death of Pope Adrian VI, arranged with King François Ier the marriage of his niece, our queen, to Henri de Valois, duc d’Orléans, François’s second son. She was brought with great triumph to Marseille by Pope Clement in person, where King François also went with his entire court, and the wedding was celebrated and solemnized with great magnificence in the year 1533. The bride was endowed with great wealth, including the counties of Auvergne and Lauragais, the seigneuries of Levroux,

244 Appendix Donzenac, Boussac, Corrèze, Hondecourt, and other lands valuing 100,000 or 120,000 livres in revenue that she inherited from her mother. For her dowry she had the sum of 120,000 écus, along with a great quantity of rich and precious furnishings, in addition to the great wealth, seigneuries and houses, deeds and claims that she had in Italy. She was brought and led into France in the court of King François Ier, when she was young and about fourteen years of age. She was received and honored according to the grandeur of her house and the rank that she held as daughter of a king, wife of the second son of France; and after the death of monsieur the dauphin, the first son, she became dauphine, beloved and cherished by all the princes and princesses, lords and ladies of the entire court, due to her gentleness, humility, and courtesy, but above all by King François, her father-in-law, who loved and cherished her as his own.71 For whoever wishes here to represent the marital affection that the late King Henri, at the time dauphin, felt toward her, and reciprocally the great and chaste conjugal love that this dauphine returned to her husband, with so much reverence and obedience that the whole court admired her for it—the demonstration of this love cannot be better expressed than by its effects, which followed after the dissolution of the marriage, which we will speak of shortly. She was married for the space of ten years without being able to have any children. But in spite of this, neither the affection of her husband nor the friendship of her father-in-law wavered in the least, but rather their affection grew every day and was nourished by a hope in the goodness of God, as she was piously patient and in continual prayer. This was such that, at the end of ten years, God, seeing this pious princess’s goodness and humility, answered her prayers, as he once did for the mother of Samuel and for the good Sarah, and also for the young Tobit.72 He endowed her with a handsome and fortunate lineage for our kings, first with King François II, then King Charles, and then our king who reigns at present, as well as monsieur the duc d’Anjou and a son who died in infancy; Queen Elisabeth, married to the King of Spain, madame de Lorraine, and the Queen of Navarre, all of them great and most illustrious queens and princesses. But to return to our discourse, monsieur the dauphin her husband, Henri de Valois, who came to the throne after the death of King François his father, so honored this virtuous queen, his wife, that he imparted his scepter and power to her, and made her capable of administering the affairs of the entire kingdom, such 71. The expression in French is: “l’aymoit et cherissoit comme ses yeux.” 72. Biblical examples of God’s benevolence to the patient and faithful; notably, two of the examples involve barren women. Hannah (1 Samuel), one of the two wives of Elkanah, was initially childless, but after promising God that she would dedicate her son to him, she gave birth to Samuel. Sarah (Genesis 17), wife of Abraham, was childless until the age of ninety; the birth of her son, Isaac, fulfilled a promise God had made to her and to Abraham. The Book of Tobit, in the Catholic biblical canon, tells the story of a blind man, Tobit, whose sight is restored by his son, Tobias, through the intercession of the angel Raphael.

Appendix 245 that, when he campaigned in Germany, outside his kingdom, with a powerful army, he established and ordained the queen his wife as regent and gouvernante of his kingdom during his absence, through a declaration solemnly made before the full Parlement of Paris.73 And in this charge she conducted herself so wisely, that there was no disturbance, disagreement, or change in this state because of the king’s absence. On the contrary, she attended so well to matters of state that the king her husband was assisted with money, means, and men, and by all other sorts of assistance, for which the king, upon his return, thanked and acknowledged her publicly. Following this, after the day of the battle of Saint Lawrence, she disposed of affairs in such a way that she incited the citizens of Paris to give prompt succor to their king.74 And having negotiated the marriage of the king dauphin, her oldest son, with the Queen of Scotland, and then of madame Elisabeth, her daughter, with the King of Spain, which was celebrated with great pomp and magnificence in the city of Paris, in 1559, the death of the late King Henri her husband occurred through the piteous accident that was calamitous for all of France. She bore such grief and regret for this that, without the grace of God and the constancy with which he had endowed this virtuous queen, she would have succumbed to this great sadness and sorrow. But God, who never forgets his own, fortified her in her actions, and she took heart in the memory and affection of the late king her husband, in charity toward her children, and in the conservation of this state and the protection of her children. Such that, like the renowned Semiramis or another Athalia, she safeguarded, defended, and protected her children and their kingdom from several actions that were planned against them, and with such prudence and industry that this entire age has found her admirable. And, as regent of this kingdom after the death of the king her son, during the minority of our kings, by the common judgment and deliberation of all the orders of this kingdom convening at Orléans, she virtuously resisted the troubles that were prepared for her to usurp this state and her children. She calmed them in such a way that these plotters and usurpers yielded and returned the cities that they had taken in this kingdom, and through force of arms she made the English surrender Havre de Grâce, which they had detained, and renewed the treaty securing Calais for the good of this crown. I cannot but admire here, in addition to her great prudence, her valor and magnanimity. For in all the exploits of war, be they at Rouen, Havre or elsewhere, 73. Catherine acted as regent twice during the reign of her husband, Henri II, the first time in 1548 when Henri pursued interests in Italy, the second in 1552 when he left France to support the German princes against Charles V. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici (London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1998), 42–43. See also Ivan Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis (Paris: Fayard, 1979), 90–120, for a discussion of Catherine’s influence during the reign of Henri II. 74. The Battle of Saint Quentin (1557), also known as the Battle of Saint Lawrence as it was fought on that saint’s feast day, August 10. Philip II of Spain defeated the French forces led by Anne de Montmorency, constable of France.

246 Appendix she was always present in person with the armies, without fear or trepidation, like another Judith, present in action and always constant. She had the majority of King Charles, her son, declared when he came of age. However, she did not leave the governing of this state without a pilot, as one was still necessary; for, although the splendor of royal dignity gave some advantage to the king’s age, nevertheless the infirmity of youth and inexperience were still there, and she wished neither to leave off nor abandon the management and administration of affairs, as she was also asked by all the princes and great men of this kingdom. The better to compose the affairs and disorder that the first troubles had brought about, she was advised to take the king her son throughout his kingdom to have him acknowledged, respected, and obeyed by the people, as well as to avoid the plots that could be planned against his person, and, by changing location, elude and undermine the schemes of the conspirators. With the troubles renewed during the year 1567, through the injury and invasion of those who, at the time, under the guise of religion, sought ambitiously to usurp this state, she worked in such a way that she calmed all affairs once again for the safeguarding of this kingdom, after which, through the courageous exploits of our king [Henri III], who was lieutenant general of this kingdom at the time and favored by God and by the wise counsel of this our queen, the enemies were vanquished in battle and constrained to obey the laws of the victor. As this wise queen considered the magnanimity of our king [Henri III] to be worthy of a great kingdom, she told him, as Philip of Macedonia once told Alexander his son, seeing his virtuous youth: “My son,” he said, “you must seek out another kingdom, for Macedonia is not sufficient, nor can it hold you back.”75 In a similar way the queen did not cease until she had acquired this great kingdom of Poland for our king her son, to which he was called by the greatest men of the kingdom, who came all the way to Paris to fetch him, while he was at the siege of La Rochelle, which city he would no doubt have taken if this honorable necessity had not called him forth. He was led by her and by all the great men of this kingdom to the border, and by several of the lords all the way to Poland, where, having reigned only a short time, he was recalled by the death of King Charles his brother in the year 1574. In this change brought on by such an unexpected death, our queen conducted herself with such wisdom and virtue that she contained and held back the troubles and agitations that were brewing during the absence of our king, and with such gentleness and diligence that, with neither weapons nor armies, she restored his state to him (as he had returned to Lyon), and even put it directly into his hands, both at peace and out of all internal and external trouble. 75. Philip II of Macedonia (382–336 BCE) and his son, Alexander the Great. Philip’s domination of Greece opened the door for Alexander to expand the Macedonian empire, which—as noted above— spanned from Egypt to India by the time of Alexander’s death.

Appendix 247 It is true that this ever rebellious faction, which is God’s scourge for us in this kingdom—like these two nations of the Philistines which were abandoned because of their afflictions to the children of Israel—continue to incite new wars and troubles, where she always exposed both her person and her means and understanding to calm and pacify affairs, and she has made many voyages far into this kingdom at great risk to her life. Again, in the great trouble that has arisen in this kingdom of late, she has exerted herself, such that it is not due to her that all affairs have not led to a good end. But God, who disposes of affairs as it pleases Him, desired to bring her out of this world so that she would not see come to fruition the calamities that are prepared for us. And, having had many years of life at seventy years old, full of honor and virtue, loved by the king her son more than himself, honored and revered by all her people, she departed to God the fifth of last January, to the great sorrow and grief of the king her son, the queen her daughter, and madame the princess, of all her household, the entire court and all the people, to the great loss of this kingdom, and to the great regret of our king, who knew to temper and dispose his great decisions and affairs with the prudent advice of this virtuous queen his mother. The greatest queen in all sorts of virtues that has ever appeared in France has died. She surpassed all the virtuous women that the Holy Scriptures can show us, except the sacred virgin Mother of God, who has no comparison. She was more chaste than the renowned Susannah, for she never gave any appearance or suspicion of calumny upon her person. She was stronger and more magnanimous than Judith, for she bore witness to her valor on several occasions.76 She surpassed Sarah in patience, for she spent her life in the continual exercise of patience. In marital affection she vanquished Penelope and the famous Dido, and other similar heroines.77 Crowned with all the graces of God and with gifts of nature, strong and healthy in constitution, possessed of a handsome body, admirable height and carriage, with a face that was gentle and modest yet touched by a gravity worthy of a queen, but especially a woman who was devout and accomplished in all virtues—in brief, this virtuous woman will be an example to posterity, sought after to the ends of the earth. 76. Susannah and Judith, both Old Testament women noted as examples of female virtue; their stories also depict the safeguarding of women who place their trust in God. Susanna (or Shoshanah, in chapter 13 of the Book of Daniel), wife of Joakim, refuses the sexual advances of two elders. They vengefully accuse her of adultery with a younger man and have her sentenced to death. Daniel intervenes and insists that the elders be interrogated. Susannah’s innocence is revealed, and the two elders are executed. Judith (Book of Judith) saves Israel by seducing the general of the enemy Assyrians, Holophernes, and then killing him. 77. Penelope, wife of Odysseus, patiently waits for her husband during the ten years it takes him to return home after the Trojan War, despite the advances of several suitors; her fidelity is celebrated in Homer’s Odyssey. Dido, the reputed founder and first queen of Carthage, throws herself on a pyre after being abandoned by Aeneas in Virgil’s Aeneid.

248 Appendix [509] … The Angel of the Apocalypse, with great clamor, said to Saint John: “Write and record that blessed are those who die in the Lord!”78 Blessed are they by the hope in which they die, but in this century alone; they die in the Lord, that is, in faith and confession right unto death! They hear the oracle of the Angel, who tells them: “Be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life.”79 Now let us see if this devout queen will be among the ranks of the blessed, for if she died in the Lord she will be blessed, because the word of God cannot lie. Her life was one of perpetual penitence, contrition, and assiduous and persevering devotion. During her illness, until the end, she received the sacraments of confession and penitence, Extreme Unction, and, by what was consigned in the death of our Savior, she received this precious viaticum of Christians, the holy sacrament of the body of our Lord, thus prepared and armed in faith, which she continually declared up until her last breath. What power can the enemy of men have over this devout soul? She is before the tribunal of the living God, where each one is judged according to what pleases His justice and mercy. But she has our Savior Jesus Christ as mediator who implores the goodness of God his father, because she always belonged to Him. Let us pray then with the entire Church that this soul that is before God may soon be in the place of eternal rest with the blessed, and that, if there remains any spot of this earthly infirmity, let it please Him in His clemency to purge her of it. Let us say together with one heart: Lord our God, father of mercy, father of all consolation, fountain and source of life, who gives life to all Your creatures, but most excellently to man for whom You have inspired the spirit of life to immortalize him, and through the death and resurrection of Your son our Savior Jesus, have conquered death and sin, who has promised the resurrection of this mortal flesh and, in body and soul, a happy and eternal life, open, O Lord, the fountains of Your grace on this devout soul who has always hoped for and aspired to this eternal life that You have promised to those whom You love! She awaits Your goodness, she trusts in the merits of the passion of her Redeemer. Lord Jesus, You were fastened alive for three whole days to a cross: how many torments did You suffer, how many tears did You render for humankind! We supplicate You, by these pains and travails, by Your holy tears, to have pity on the sighs of our king, a son so charitable toward his good mother, on the tears of this saintly queen, on the regrets of this young and most virtuous princess, who have lost everything in the death of this good mother. With a single look of pity such as the one You gave to Your sacred mother while on the cross, with a single shudder issued from Your divinity, all the tears from this entire royal family, even from all the people of France, who recognize their loss in this piteous death, will 78. Revelation 14:13. 79. Revelation 2:10.

Appendix 249 disappear. Lord, let it please You, let it please You by Your holy name, to receive the prayers of Your Church and of this entire congregation for the repose of this soul, which has always loved and recognized Your divine goodness and trusted in your mercies. Lord, let it please You to bestow upon her now this last need, for in Your hand is death and life eternal. Take her to Your side with those whom You love. We trust, with the faith that it has pleased You to leave us, that he who believes in Your holy name does not die at all, but rather goes from death to life. And you, most sacred mother of the Son of God, mother of widows and those who are abandoned, see the devastation of our king who has lost his consolation here below, and the repose and tranquility of his spirit. Be a mother to him and intercede for him to God, do not leave him abandoned by the graces of the Holy Spirit to rule this kingdom here below, which God has put into his hands.80 Let him be able to say along with this good king and prophet: “My father and my mother have forsaken me; but my Lord has received me in his arms!”81 Lord, have pity on him; by Your goodness, keep him and his entire kingdom from the miseries and calamities that we have justly merited. Open his eyes to Your holy counsel such that, after having reigned here for many years and having restored his people to complete and utter tranquility in the glory of Your holy name, he can reign above in life eternal with the blessed! Amen.

80. The casting of the Virgin Mary as an intercessor is a specifically Catholic stance. 81. Psalm 27:10.

250 Appendix

Etienne Pasquier on the Death of the Queen Mother82 To Master Nicolas Pasquier, his Son, Counselor and the King’s Ordinary Master of Requests. Pasquier recounts to his son the death of the queen mother with some praise for her life. The queen mother has died, on the eve of the Epiphany, to all of our great surprise.83 I have no doubt that this news has already reached you: nevertheless perhaps you have not heard all the details. She had been gravely ill and was keeping to her room, when the king came in brusquely to tell her about the death of monsieur de Guise, just after it happened.84 Her soul was so troubled by this that she began to worsen visibly from that moment. Nevertheless, not wishing to displease her son, she disguised her chagrin as much as possible. Four or five days afterward she wished to go to church, and upon her return she went to visit monsieur the cardinal de Bourbon, who was held prisoner, and who began with an abundance of tears to impute that, without the promise she had given them [for their safety], neither he nor his nephews the Guise brothers would have come there.85 At that point the eyes of both were like fountains, and soon afterward, this poor lady, soaked in tears, returned to her rooms without dining. The next 82. Lead translator: Leah L. Chang. Oeuvres d’Estienne Pasquier, Vol. 2 (Amsterdam: Compagnie des Libraires Associez, 1723), 378. Etienne Pasquier (1529–1615) was a Parisian magistrate, famous in his time for pleading several high-profile cases. He was also a prolific writer and published numerous volumes, in multiple editions, including works of philosophy, poetry, history, and letters. His best known works include (in first editions) Le Monophile (1554), Les Recherches de la France (1560), and Les Lettres d’Etienne Pasquier (1586). He also famously collaborated with the Poitevine writer Catherine des Roches on a poetic anthology entitled La Puce de Madame des Roches (1583). Dictionnaire des lettres françaises: Le XVIe siècle, ed. Michel Simonin (Paris: Fayard, 2001), 911–13. 83. January 5, 1589. 84. Henri III. The duc de Guise and his brother the cardinal were murdered on December 23 and 24, 1588, respectively, by the order of the king, in order to curb the increasingly powerful Catholic League. The League, headed by the duc de Guise, was increasingly intolerant of what it perceived to be Henri III’s concessions to the Protestants, and increasingly aggressive in its efforts to undercut Henri’s royal authority. Henri’s authority reached perhaps its lowest point during the “Day of the Barricades,” May 12, 1588, in which members of the League (known as “the Sixteen”) attempted to stage a coup in Paris. See Mack P. Holt, The French Wars of Religion, 1562–1629 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 129–32. A contemporary, Pierre de l’Estoile, describes the Guise murders in detail in his Journal pour le règne de Henri III (1574–1589), ed. Louis-Raymond Lefèvre (Paris: Gallimard, 1943), 581–82. 85. The cardinal de Bourbon: Charles de Bourbon (1523–90), an important figure for the Catholic League, and imprisoned by Henri III at Blois. The League considered Henri de Navarre an illegitimate successor to the French throne because of his Protestantism, and claimed the cardinal to be the rightful king. The cardinal died, however, in 1590, a prisoner in the castle of Fontenay-le-Comte.

Appendix 251 Monday she took to her bed, and on Wednesday, the eve of the Epiphany, she died. There is one memorable thing to note about her death: she placed great faith in divinations, and as someone had once predicted to her that to live a long life she needed to beware of a Saint-Germain, she especially wished to avoid going to Saint-Germain-en-Laye, fearing to meet her death there. She built her palace in the parish of Saint-Eustache, where she resided, in order not to stay at the Louvre, which is in the parish of Saint-Germain de l’Auxerrois. In the end, as she lay dying, God did not wish that she be lodged at one of the Saint-Germains, but rather that monsieur de Saint-Germain, the king’s confessor, be there to comfort her. The great Pompeii was thus deceived by a word with two meanings, for, having heard from an oracle that he should beware of Cassius, he feared all those with that name: but instead of being wronged by them, he was, by chance and without realizing what would happen, assassinated on Mount Cassius. Three weeks after her death the king had the queen his mother’s funeral celebrated according to what the convenience of his affairs allowed; her body was placed in the church of Saint-Sauveur in a lead casket, waiting for a time when she could be transported to Saint-Denis, after France was calmer. It is true that because she was not well embalmed (for the city of Blois is not stocked with drugs and spices for this task) and the body started to smell bad a few days after the king’s departure, they were forced to bury her in the middle of the night, not in a vault, since there wasn’t one, but rather straight in the ground, just like the lowest man among us. She was even buried in a part of the church where there was no marker that she was there. Clearly, this human condition is a miserable one! This princess, who did not esteem that the church of Saint-Denis, the ancient tomb of our kings, was capable enough to receive either the body of the king her husband, nor her own, nor those of messieurs her children, and who had work done to the building of the three chapels outside of the church for thirty years so they could serve as their sepulchers, and who had marble images built of both her husband and herself at an expense similar to what the Kings of Egypt paid for their mausoleums; here she is, today, reduced to the same status as the poorest souls in France! Good God, how great and marvelous are your secrets! Monsieur the bishop of Bourges, who gave her funeral oration, has depicted her as a flawless princess.86 Certainly, it could not be said that among all the princesses of our age, this one did not receive great favors from God, as she was first married to the second son of France who became king after the death of his older brother, and as she had from this marriage seven children, who all governed royally: François II, Charles IX, Henri III, each one after the other Kings of France, the latter even King of Poland; François, duc d’Alençon, who was proclaimed in state the Duke of Brabant and the Count of Flanders. As for the daughters, Elisabeth the oldest was married to the King of Spain; Claude, the second daughter, to the duc de Lorraine; and Marguerite, the 86. Pasquier refers to the funeral oration by Renaud de Beaune.

252 Appendix third, to the King of Navarre. If she was very fortunate, this lady was also endowed with many laudable qualities inasmuch as she was debonair, approachable, and as generous as could be. She was a lady who did not know how to offend anyone in private, and even less so to take offense from others. We saw a libelous defamation circulating against her, entitled La Catherine: it was the most biting satire that had ever been seen, which she read at length.87 Nevertheless, she never wished to seek out its author. Moreover, one cannot deny that she brought the greatest prudence to bear on the path of her fate; that she, a foreign princess, after the death of the king her husband, would know how to safeguard the state for her three children, all very young, even in the midst of France’s troubles, all the more so because of religion! These are no small things, as much for the particular as for the general. Finally, it was she alone who orchestrated the pacifications between the king and his subjects. But as it is always the case that good fortune is counterbalanced by some misfortune, and that where there are great and good virtues, one also frequently finds great faults, so both her good luck and all these virtues received various counterweights through several unfortunate calamities. For, with regard to her fate, she saw all of her sons die before her, except he whom she loved above all others, who, in return, without realizing it, caused her death, as you have heard recounted above.88 As for her daughters, she also saw Elisabeth, the Queen of Spain, die, as well as Claude, duchesse de Lorraine: the former died a horrible death, if one is to believe what one hears.89 This left her only with the Queen of Navarre, her youngest daughter, who alone has survived her. And even when she planned to make herself the Queen of Portugal, believing that the kingdom belonged to her, as she was the closest living relative to the throne, and after she had sent off an army to this end under the direction of her relative seigneur Strozzi, all was put to the sword. For, with regard to the greater part of her mind and morals, many see vice where others see virtue, and blame her for having neglected the rumors that circulated against her and turned indifferently from them. They add that our ruin was built on her immense liberalities, as she was one of the first to give fashion to the edicts of taxation, which are the ruin of our state. They claim that, although she pretended to pacify everything when all of France was aflame, it was she who lit the fires and afterward pretended to extinguish them. For she had this proposition imprinted on her soul: that a princess, especially a foreign one, can only maintain her grandeur by sowing divisiveness among the princes and great lords, a lesson whose instruction and memory she gave to the late Queen of Scotland 87. This is a reference to the Discours merveilleux. 88. Henri III. 89. Rumors had circulated that Elisabeth was poisoned by her husband, Philip II of Spain. See Martha Walker Freer, Elisabeth de Valois, Queen of Spain, and the Court of Philip II, vol. 2 (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1857), 333.

Appendix 253 when she returned to her kingdom of Scotland after the death of her husband, King François II. They have recounted several examples of the application of this maxim, which I take no pleasure in recounting. Nor am I able and willing to believe them. In fact, wishing to honor her memory with all humility, I composed the following epitaph for her: Here lies the flower of the state of Florence Widow of the king, Mother of kings as well Who with marvelous care saved All her children from violence. Heaven permitted that by the blow of a lance Our sun was obscured from all; And that the Great One, hardened to war, Ignited the fires in France for us. But this lady armed with a great heart Defending against the blows of hate and enmity She alone closed the door on our troubles. At last she has died, the eve of the Epiphany And through her death I fear, people of France, That, along with peace, royalty has also died.

Bibliography Primary Sources: Early Modern and Modern Editions D’Albret, Jeanne. Mémoires et poésies de Jeanne d’Albret. Ed. Alphonse de Ruble (Paris: E. Paul, Huart, et Guillemin, 1893). Beaune, Renaud de. Oraison funèbre faicte aux obsèques de la Royne, Mère du Roy, par Messire Regnault de Beaune, patriarche et archevesque de Bourges, primat d’Aquitaine, en présence du Roy, de la Royne, de Madame la princesse de Lorraine, des princes de Bourbon, cardinaux, ambassadeurs, prélats et autres seigneurs et dames, à Blois, le IIIIe jour de février 1589. Blois: Mettayer et L’Huillier, 1589. Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de. Recueil des Dames, poésies et tombeaux. Edited by Etienne Vaucheret. Paris: Gallimard, 1991. Bref et sommaire recueil de ce qui a esté faict, & de l’ordre tenüe à la ioyeuse & triumphante entree de tres-puissant, tres-magnanime & tres-chrestien Prince Charles IX. de ce nom Roy de France, en sa bonne ville & cité de Paris, capitale de son Royaume, le Mardy sixiesme iour de Mars: Auec le couronnement de tres-haute, tres-illustre & tres-excellente Princesse Madame Elizabet d’Austriche son espouse, le Dimanche vingtcinquiesme. Paris: Denis du Pré, for Olivier Codoré, 1572. Brown, Horatio F., ed. “The Death and Funeral of Catherine de’ Medici, as Described by the Venetian Ambassador in France.” English Historical Review 11, no. 44 (1896): 748–50. Charles IX. “Lettre écrite, par ordre de Charles IX, aux cantons suisses protestants après la Saint-Barthélemy.” Bulletin de la société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 3 (1885): 274–78. “Copie des lettres envoyées à la Roine-mere par un sien serviteur après la mort du feu roy Henri II.” In Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportements de Catherine de Médicis, Royne-mère, edited by Nicole Cazauran, 283–94. Geneva: Droz, 1995. Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions & deportemens de Catherine de Medicis, Royne mere  : Auquel sont recitez les moyens qu’elle a tenu pour usurper le gouvernement du Royaume de France, & ruiner l’estat d’iceluy. N.p., 1575; http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/scholarlyresources/portfolio/gordon/religion/ discoursmerveilleux.html. Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportemens de Catherine de Médicis, Roine Mere : Declarant les moyens qu’elle a tenus pour usurper le gouvernment du Royaume de France, & ruiner l’estat d’iceluy. N.p., 1576.

255

256 Bibliography Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportements de Catherine de Médicis, Royne-mère. Edited by Nicole Cazauran. Geneva: Droz, 1995. “Documens authentiques sur la Saint Barthélemy.” Revue rétrospective, 1st ser., 5 (1834): 358–72. Du Bellay, Joachim. Les Regrets. Les Antiquités de Rome. Edited by Samuel de Sacy. Paris: Gallimard, 1967. Reprint, 1993. François Ier de Valois. “Lettres de naturalité pour Laurent de Médicis, duc d’Urbin, et Catherine, sa fille.” Mai 1519. In Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, vol. 10, edited by Gustave Baguenault de Puchesse, 477–78. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1909. Goulart, Simon. Mémoires de l’estat de France sous Charles neufiesme. N.p., 1577. Guicciardini, Francesco. Maxims and Reflections (Ricordi). Translated by Mario Domandi. Introduction by Nicolai Rubinstein. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972. La Planche, Louis Régnier de. Histoire de l’estat de France, tant de la république que de la religion, sous le règne de François II. 1576. In Choix de chroniques et mémoires sur l’histoire de France, edited by J.A.C. Buchon, 202–421. Paris: A. Desrez, 1836. L’Estoile, Pierre de. Journal pour le règne de Henri III (1574–1589), edited by Louis-Raymond Lefèvre. Paris: Gallimard, 1943. __________. Registre-Journal du règne de Henri III, vol. 1 (1574–1575). Edited by Madeleine Lazard and Gilbert Schrenck. Geneva: Droz, 1992. Médicis, Catherine de. Lettres de Catherine de Médicis. Edited by Hector de la Ferrière-Percy (vols. 1–5) and Gustave Baguenault de Puchesse (vols. 6–10). 11 vols., including the index edited by André Lesort. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1880–1943. Paris, Louis, ed. Négociations, lettres et pièces diverses relatives au règne de François II, tirées du portefeuille de Sébastien de L’Aubespine, évêque de Limoges. Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1841. Pasquier, Etienne. Lettres historiques pour les années 1556–1594. Edited by Dorothy Thickett. Geneva: Droz, 1966. __________. Oeuvres d’Estienne Pasquier, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Compagnie des Libraires Associez, 1723. Pizan, Christine de. La Città delle dame / Le Livre de la Cité des Dames. Edited by Earl Jeffrey Richards. Translated by Patricia Caraffi. Milan: Luni Editrice, 1997. Plutarch. Les Oeuvres morales et meslées de Plutarque. Edited by Jacques Amyot. 2 vols. Paris: Michel Vascosan, 1572; 1574; 1575. Le Reveille-matin des françois, et de leurs voisins. Composé par Eusebe Philadelphe Cosmopolite, en forme de Dialogues. Edimbourg [Edinburgh]: Printed by Jaques James, 1574.

Bibliography 257 Ronsard, Pierre de. “Discours des misères de ce temps. A la Royne, Mere du Roy, Catherine de Médicis. Discours à la royne.” In Oeuvres complètes de Ronsard, vol. 2, edited by Gustave Cohen, 865–72. Paris: Gallimard, 1950. __________. Elégies, mascarades et bergeries. Paris: G. Buon, 1565. Le Tocsain, contre les massacreurs et auteurs des confusions en France. Par lequel, la source & origine de tous les maux, qui de long temps travaillent la France est descouverte. Reims: Jean Martin, 1577; 1579. Tommaseo, M.N., ed. and trans. Relations des ambassadeurs vénitiens sur les affaires de France au XVIe siècle. 2 vols. Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1838.

Secondary Sources Adams, Tracy. “Christine de Pizan, Isabeau of Bavaria, and Female Regency.” French Historical Studies 32, no. 1 (Winter 2009): 1–32. __________. The Life and Afterlife of Isabeau of Bavaria. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2010. Alduy, Cécile. Politique des “Amours”: poétique et genèse d’un genre français nouveau (1544–1560). Geneva: Droz, 2007. Altman, Janet Gurkin. “Pour une histoire culturelle de la lettre: l’épistolier et l’état sous l’Ancien Régime.” In L’épistolarité à travers les siècles, edited by Mireille Bossis and Charles A. Porter, 106–15. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990. __________. “1725: The Politics of Epistolary Art.” In A New History of French Literature, edited by Denis Hollier, 415–21. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Babelon, Jean-Pierre. “The Louvre: Royal Residence and Temple of the Arts.” In Realms of Memory: The Construction of the French Past, vol. 3, Symbols, edited by Pierre Nora and Lawrence D. Kritzman, translated by Arthur Goldhammer, 253–92. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Balsamo, Jean. Les Rencontres des muses: Italianisme et anti-italianisme dans les lettres françaises de la fin du XVIe siècle. Geneva: Slaktine, 1992. Baumgartner, Frederic. France in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1995. __________. “Henry II and the Papal Conclave of 1549.” Sixteenth Century Journal 16, no. 3 (1985): 301–14. __________. “Renaud de Beaune, Politique Prelate.” Sixteenth Century Journal 9, no. 2 (July 1978): 99-114. __________. “The Valois: Kings of France, 1328–1589, by Robert J. Knecht.” English Historical Review 122, no. 497 (June 2007): 813–14. Beame, Edmond M. “The Use and Abuse of Machiavelli: The Sixteenth-Century French Adaptation.” Journal of the History of Ideas 43, no. 1 (1982): 33–54.

258 Bibliography Belleval, René Marquis de. Les derniers Valois: François II, Charles IX, Henri III. Paris: Henri Vivien, 1900. Benedict, Philip. Graphic History: The Wars, Massacres and Troubles of Tortorel and Perrissin. Geneva: Droz, 2007. __________. “The Saint Bartholomew’s Massacres in the Provinces.” The Historical Journal 21, no. 2 (1978): 205–25. Berthoud, Gabrielle. Antoine Marcourt, réformateur et pamphlétaire: Du ‘Livre des marchands’ aux placards de 1534. Geneva: Droz, 1973. Bèze, Théodore de. Histoire ecclésiastique des églises réformées au royaume de France, vol. 1. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1883. Blaisdell, C.J. “Marguerite de Navarre and her Circle.” In Female Scholars: A Tradition of Learned Women before 1800, edited by J.R. Brink, 36–53. Montréal: Eden Press Women’s Publications, 1980. Bonnaffé, Edmond. Inventaire des meubles de Catherine de Médicis en 1589. Paris: 1874. Bradbury, Jim. The Capetians: Kings of France, 937–1328. New York: Continuum Books, 2007. Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeïlle, Abbé de. The Book of the Ladies (Illustrious Dames), with elucidations on some of those ladies by C.-A. Sainte-Beuve, translated by Katharine Prescott Wormeley. London: William Heinemann, 1899. Brown, Elizabeth A.R. Jean du Tillet and the French Wars of Religion: Five Tracts, 1562–1569. Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1994. Bunson, Matthew. Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. New York: Facts on File, 1992. Camargo, Martin. Ars dictaminis, Ars dictandi. Typologie des sources du Moyen Age occidental 60. Turnhout: Brepols, 1991. __________. “Where’s the Brief? The Ars Dictaminis and Reading/Writing Between the Lines.” Disputatio 1 (1996): 1–17. Carroll, Stuart. Martyrs and Murderers: The Guise Family and the Making of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Carter, Charles. The Western European Powers, 1500–1700. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1971. Cassidy-Welch, Megan. “Memories of Space in Thirteenth-Century France: Displaced People after the Albigensian Crusade.” Parergon 27, no. 2 (2010): 111–31. Chang, Leah. “Blushing and Legibility in La Princesse de Clèves.” Romance Studies 30, no. 1 (January 2012): 14–24. __________. “Spectacle, Sublimation, and Civic Pride in Scève’s ‘L’Entree de la Royne.’ ” Romance Quarterly 54, no. 2 (Spring 2007): 124–35.

Bibliography 259 Chartier, Roger, Alain Boureau, and Cécile Dauphin. Correspondence: Models of Letter-Writing from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth Century. Translated by Christopher Woodall. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997. Chaunu, Pierre. “Les Pays-Bas de l’Empire de Charles Quint et Philippe II,” Histoire, économie et société 12, no. 3 (1993): 403–18. Cholakian, Patricia, and Rouben Cholakian. Marguerite de Navarre (1492–1549): Mother of the Renaissance. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Cloulas, Ivan. Catherine de Médicis. Paris: Fayard, 1979. Coleman, Dorothy. The Gallo-Roman Muse: Aspects of Roman Literary Tradition in Sixteenth-Century French Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Connell, William J., and Andrea Zorzi, eds. Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Constable, Giles. Letters and Letter-Collections. Typologie des sources du Moyen Age occidental 17. Turnhout: Brepols, 1976. __________. “The Structure of Medieval Society according to the Dictatores of the Twelfth Century.” In Law, Church and Society: Essays in Honor of Stephan Kuttner, edited by Kenneth Pennington and Robert Somerville, 253–67. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977. Cooper, Richard. Litteræ in tempore belli: Etudes sur les relations littéraires italofrançaises pendant les guerres d’Italie. Geneva: Droz, 1997. Cotgrave, Randle. A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues. London: Adam Islip, 1611; http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cotgrave/. Couchman, Jane, and Ann Crabb, eds. Women’s Letters Across Europe, 1400– 1700: Form and Persuasion. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2005. Crawford, Katherine. “Constructing Evil Foreign Queens.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 37, no. 2 (Spring 2007): 393–418. __________. Perilous Performances: Gender and Regency in Early Modern France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Crouzet, Denis. Les Guerriers de Dieu: La violence au temps des troubles de religion (vers 1525–vers 1610). Paris: Editions Champ Vallon, 2006. __________. Le Haut cœur de Catherine de Médicis: Une raison politique aux temps de la Saint-Barthélemy. Paris: Albin Michel, 2005. __________. La Nuit de la Saint-Barthélemy. Paris: Fayard, 1994. __________. “‘A Strong Desire to be a Mother to all your Subjects’: A Rhetorical Experiment by Catherine de Medici.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 38, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 103–18. Davis, Natalie Zemon. “The Rites of Violence: Religious Riot in Sixteenth-Century France.” Past and Present 59 (1973): 51–91.

260 Bibliography Delcourt, Denyse. “Magie, fiction, et phantasme dans le ‘Roman de Perceforest’: Pour une poétique de l’illusion au Moyen Age.” Romanic Review 85, no. 2 (1994): 167–78. DellaNeva, JoAnn. “Du Bellay: Reader of Scève, Reader of Petrarch.” Romanic Review 79 (1988): 401–11. __________. “An Exploding Canon: Petrarch and the Petrarchists in Renaissance France.” Annali d’Italianistica 22 (2004): 189–206. Dentière, Marie. Epistle to Marguerite de Navarre and Preface to a Sermon by John Calvin, edited and translated by Mary B. McKinley. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Despatches of Michele Suriano and Marc’Antonio Barbaro, Venetian Ambassadors at the Court of France, 1560–1563, edited for the Huguenot Society of London by Henri Layard. Lymington: Printed by C.T. King, 1891. Dictionnaire de L’Académie française (1st ed., 1694, and 6th ed., 1835). Diefendorf, Barbara. Beneath the Cross: Catholics and Huguenots in SixteenthCentury Paris. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. __________. “Prologue to a Massacre: Popular Unrest in Paris, 1557–1572.” American Historical Review 90 (1985): 1067–91. __________. “Rites of Repair: Restoring Community in the French Religious Wars.” Past and Present 214, Suppl. 7 (2012): 30–51. __________. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre: A Brief History with Documents. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2009. Earenfight, Theresa. Queenship in Medieval Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Encyclopedia Judaica. 22 vols. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972. Encyclopedia of World Biography. 2nd ed. 17 vols. Detroit: Gale, 1998. Ferguson, Gary, and Mary B. McKinley, eds. A Companion to Marguerite de Navarre. Leiden: Brill, 2013. ffolliott, Sheila. “Exemplarity and Gender: Three Lives of Queen Catherine de’ Medici.” In The Rhetorics of Life-Writing in Early Modern Europe: Forms of Biography from Cassandra Fedele to Louis XIV, edited by Thomas F. Mayer and D.R. Woolf, 321–40. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995. __________. “‘La Florentine’ or ‘La bonne Françoise’: Some Sixteenth-Century Commentators on Catherine de’ Medici and her Patronage.” In Medici Women as Cultural Mediators, 1533–1743, edited by Christina Strunck, 17–33. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 2012. __________. “The Italian ‘Training’ of Catherine de Medici: Portraits as Dynastic Narrative.” The Court Historian 10, no. 1 (2005): 36–54. Findlen, Paula, ed. The Italian Renaissance: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.

Bibliography 261 Fouracre, Paul, and Richard A. Gerberding. Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography, 640–720. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996. Freer, Martha Walker. Elizabeth de Valois, Queen of Spain, and the Court of Philip II. 2 vols. London: Hurst and Blackett, 1857. Frieda, Leonie. Catherine de Medici: Renaissance Queen of France. New York: Harper Perennial, 2006. Frisch, Andrea. The Invention of the Eyewitness: Witnessing and Testimony in Early Modern France. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. __________. “Montaigne and the Ethics of Memory.” L’Esprit créateur 46, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 23–31. Gale: Cengage Learning. “Introduction: French Political Pamphlets, 1547–1848.” http://microformguides.gale.com/Data/Introductions/30210FM.htm. Giesey, Ralph E. “The Juristic Basis of Dynastic Right to the French Throne.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., 51, no. 5 (1961): 3–42. __________. Le Rôle méconnu de la loi salique: La succession royale, XIVe–XVIe siècles. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007. Gordetsky, J., R. Rabinowitz, and J. O’Brien. “The ‘Infertility’ of Catherine de Medici and its Influence on Sixteenth-Century France.” Canadian Journal of Urology 16, no. 2 (April 2009): 4584–88. Graham, Victor E., and W. McAllister Johnson. The Royal Tour of France by Charles IX and Catherine de’ Medici: Festivals and Entries, 1564–6. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979. Graves, Amy. “Martyrs manqués: Simon Goulart, continuateur du martyrologe de Crespin.” Revue des sciences humaines 269, no. 1 (2003): 53–86. Gray, Janet. “The Origin of the Word Huguenot.” Sixteenth Century Journal 14, no. 3 (1983): 349–59. Gueudet, Guy. “Archéologie d’un genre: les premiers manuels français d’art épistolaire.” In Mélanges sur la littérature de la Renaissance: à la mémoire de V.-L. Saulnier, 87–98. Geneva: Droz, 1984. Guicciardini, Francesco. The History of Italy. Translated and edited by Sidney Alexander. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984. Haaser, Sylvie. “Brantôme, le confident-poète: Marguerite de Valois, Marie Stuart, Elisabeth de Valois.” In Brantôme et les Grands d’Europe: rencontres de Brantôme en Périgord, janvier 2003, edited by Françoise Argod-Dutard, Anne-Marie Cocula, et al., 111–22. Pessac: Editions du Centre Montaigne de l’Université de Bordeaux 3, 2003. Hallam, Elizabeth M. Capetian France, 987–1328. London: Longman, 1980. Hampton, Timothy. Fictions of Embassy: Literature and Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009.

262 Bibliography __________. Literature and Nation in the Sixteenth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001. Hanley, Sarah. “Identity Politics and Rulership in France: Female Political Place and the Fraudulent Salic Law in Christine de Pizan and Jean de Montreuil.” In Changing Identities in Early Modern France, edited by Michael Wolfe, 78–94. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997. __________. “The Salic Law.” In Political and Historical Encyclopedia of Women, edited by Christine Fauré, 2–18. New York: Routledge, 2003. __________. “Social Sites of Political Practice in France: Lawsuits, Civil Rights, and the Separation of Powers in Domestic and State Government, 1500– 1800.” American Historical Review 102, no. 1 (1997): 27–52. Hazon, J.A. Notice des hommes les plus célèbres de la faculté de médecine de l’Université de Paris. Paris: Benoît Morin, 1778. Heath, Michael. “Unholy Alliance: Valois and Ottomans.” Renaissance Studies 3, no. 3 (1989): 303–15. Heller, Henry. Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-Century France. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. __________. “Marguerite of Navarre and the Reformers of Meaux.” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 33, no. 2 (1972): 271–310. Higman, Francis. “1542: The Neoplatonic Debate.” In A New History of French Literature, edited by Denis Hollier, 187–89. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Holt, Mack P. The Duke of Anjou and the Politique Struggle During the Wars of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. __________. The French Wars of Religion, 1562–1629. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. __________. Renaissance and Reformation France. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. __________. “Wine, Community and Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Burgundy.” Past and Present 138, no. 1 (February 1993): 58–93. Hoogvliet, Margriet. “Princely Culture and Catherine de Médicis.” In Princes and Princely Culture, 1450–1650, vol. 1, edited by Martin Gosman, Alasdair A. MacDonald, and Arjo Vanderjagt, 103–30. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Hornblower, Simon, and Antony Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Huchon, Mireille. “Vie de Sainte Catherine ou Discours merveilleux : Les avatars d’un pamphlet.” In Cahiers V.L. Saulnier 2 : Traditions Polémiques, edited by Nicole Cazauran, 55–67. Paris: Ecole Normale Supérieure de Jeune Filles, 1984. Huneycutt, Lois L. “Female Succession and the Language of Power in the Writings of Twelfth-Century Churchmen.” In Medieval Queenship, edited by John Carmi Parsons, 189–201. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

Bibliography 263 James, Alan. “A French Armada? The Azores Campaigns, 1580–1583.” The Historical Journal 55, no. 1 (March 2012): 1–20. James, Edward. The Franks. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988. Keller, Marcus. Figurations of France: Literary Nation-Building in Times of Crisis, 1550–1650. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2011. Kibler, William W., and Grover A. Zinn, eds. Medieval France: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland, 1995. Kim, Seong-Hak. Michel de l’Hôpital: The Vision of a Reformist Chancellor during the French Religious Wars. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1997. King, Helen. Midwifery, Obstetrics and the Rise of Gynaecology: The Uses of a Sixteenth-Century Compendium. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007. Kingdon, Robert. Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 1572–1576. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. Klosowska, Anna. “Tearsong: Valentina Visconti’s Inverted Stoicism.” Glossator 5: (2011): 173-98. Knecht, Robert J. Catherine de’ Medici. New York: Addison Wesley, 1998. __________. The French Civil Wars, 1562–1598. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 2000. __________. The French Wars of Religion, 1559–1598. New York: Longman, 1996. __________. Renaissance Warrior and Patron: The Reign of Francis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. __________. The Valois: Kings of France, 1328–1589. London: Hambledon, 2004. Kociszewska, Ewa. “War and Seduction in Cybele’s Garden: Contextualizing the Ballet des Polonais.” Renaissance Quarterly 65, no. 3 (Fall 2012): 809–63. Kong, Katherine. Lettering the Self in Medieval and Early Modern France. Woodbridge, UK, and Rochester, NY: Boydell and Brewer, 2010. LaGuardia, David. Intertextual Masculinity in French Renaissance Literature: Rabelais, Brantôme, and the Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008. __________. “Two Queens, a Dog, and a Purloined Letter: On Memory as a Discursive Phenomenon in Late Renaissance France.” Forthcoming. Lainé, P. Louis. Archives généaolgiques et historiques de la noblesse de France, vol. 8. Paris: Lainé, 1843. Langer, Ullrich. “1572, 24 August: Poetry and Action.” In A New History of French Literature, edited by Denis Hollier, 231–36. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Lewis, Charlton T., and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879. Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.

264 Bibliography Loughran, Ellen. “Jacques Amyot.” In Sixteenth-Century French Writers, edited by Megan Conway, 3–8. Dictionary of Literary Biography, vol. 327. Detroit: Gale, 2006. Lowndes, William Thomas, and Henry George Bohn. The Bibliographer’s Manual of English Literature (new ed., revised and expanded, in 6 vols). London: Henry G. Bohn, 1865, vol. 4. Luria, Keith. Sacred Boundaries: Religious Coexistence and Conflict in EarlyModern France. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005. Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Chief Works and Others, vol. 1. Translated by Allan Gilbert. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1989. MacKenzie, Louisa. “The Poet, the Nation, and the Region: Constructing Anjou and France.” In The Poetry of Place: Lyric, Landscape, and Ideology in Renaissance France, 51–86. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011. Matarasso, Pauline. Queen’s Mate: Three Women of Power in France on the Eve of the Renaissance. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2001. Mattingly, Garrett. Renaissance Diplomacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955. McCartney, Elizabeth. “In the Queen’s Words: Perceptions of Regency Government Gleaned from the Correspondence of Catherine de Médicis.” In Women’s Letters Across Europe, 1400–1700: Form and Persuasion, edited by Jane Couchman and Ann Crabb, 207–22. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2005. __________. “The King’s Mother and Royal Prerogative in Early SixteenthCentury France.” In Medieval Queenship, edited by John Carmi Parsons, 117–41. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993. McCracken, Peggy. The Romance of Adultery: Queenship and Sexual Transgression in Old French Literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998. McLemore, S. Dale. “Simmel’s ‘Stranger’: A Critique of the Concept.” Pacific Sociological Review 13, no. 2 (Spring 1970), 86–94. Mears, Natalie. “Love-making and Diplomacy: Elizabeth I and the Anjou Marriage Negotiations, c. 1578–1582.” History 86, no. 284 (October 2001): 442–66. Ménager, Daniel. Diplomatie et théologie à la Renaissance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2001. Metzger, Bruce, and Michael Coogan, eds. The Oxford Guide to People and Places of the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Mitchell, James. A Dictionary of Universal History, Chronology, and Historical Biography: Compiled from the Latest and Best Authorities. London: Sir Richard Phillips and Company, 1823. Monson, Craig A. “The Council of Trent Revisited.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 55, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 1–37.

Bibliography 265 Monter, William. Judging the French Reformation: Heresy Trials by SixteenthCentury Parlements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. __________. The Rise of Female Kings in Europe, 1300–1800. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012. Murphy, James J. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. Reprint, Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2001. Nauert, Charles G. “Marguerite, Lefèvre d’Etaples, and the Growth of Christian Humanism in France.” In Approaches to Teaching Marguerite de Navarre’s Heptaméron, edited by Colette H. Winn, 38–43. New York: MLA, 2007. Nelson, Janet L. “Medieval Queenship.” In Women in Medieval Western European Culture, edited by Linda E. Mitchell, 179–207. New York: Garland, 1999. Olivier-Martin, François. Les régences et la majorité des rois sous les Capétiens directs et les premiers Valois, 1060–1375. Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1931. Parsons, John Carmi. “Family, Sex, and Power: The Rhythms of Medieval Queenship.” In Medieval Queenship, edited by John Carmi Parsons, 1–11. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. __________, ed. Medieval Queenship. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Pegg, Mark. A Most Holy War: The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle for Christendom. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Poitiers, Diane de. Lettres inédites de Dianne de Poytiers, edited by Georges Guiffrey. Paris: J. Renouard, 1866. Electronic copy, University of Michigan Library; https://archive.org/details/lettresinditesd00poitgoog. Polachek, Dora. “A la recherche du spirituel: L’Italie et les Dames galantes de Brantôme.” Romanic Review 94 (2003): 227–43. __________. “Brantôme (Pierre de Bourdeille).” In Sixteenth-Century French Writers, edited by Megan Conway, 53–60. Dictionary of Literary Biography, vol. 327. Detroit: Gale, 2006. Potter, David. A History of France, 1460–1560: The Emergence of a Nation State. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995. Poulet, André. “Capetian Women and the Regency: The Genesis of a Vocation.” In Medieval Queenship, edited by John Carmi Parsons, 93–116. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Queller, Donald E. The Office of the Ambassador in the Middle Ages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967. Racaut, Luc. “The Polemical Use of the Albigensian Crusade during the French Wars of Religion,” French History 13, no. 3 (1999): 261–79. Reid, Jonathan A. King’s Sister—Queen of Dissent: Marguerite of Navarre (1492– 1549) and her Evangelical Network. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

266 Bibliography Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato (Florence: Clio, 1839); http://www. storiadivenezia.net. Ribier, Guillaume. Lettres et mémoires d’estat des roys, princes, ambassadeurs et autres ministres sous les règnes de François Ier, Henri II et François II, vol. 2, 387–89. Paris: François Clouzier, 1666. Robertson, William. The History of Charles V. Paris: Baudry, 1828. Roelker, Nancy L. One King, One Faith: The Parlement of Paris and Religious Reformations of the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996. __________. Queen of Navarre: Jeanne d’Albret, 1528–1572. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. S., V. “François Ritter’s Histoire de l’imprimerie alsacienne aux xve et xvie siècles.” The Library, 5th ser., 11, no. 4 (1956): 292-94. Salmon, J. H. M., ed. The French Wars of Religion. How Important were Religious Factors? Boston: Heath, 1967. __________. Society in Crisis: France in the Sixteenth Century. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975. Scott, Virginia, and Sara Sturm-Maddox. Performance, Poetry and Politics on the Queen’s Day: Catherine de Médicis and Pierre de Ronsard at Fontainebleau. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007. Sealy, Robert J. The Myth of the Reine Margot: Toward the Elimination of a Legend. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1994. Simmel, Georg. “The Stranger.” In The Sociology of Georg Simmel, edited and translated by Kurt H. Wolff, 402–8. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1950. Simonin, Michel, ed. Dictionnaire des lettres françaises  : Le XVIe siècle. Paris: Fayard, 2001. Smith, Pauline. The Anti-Courtier Trend in Sixteenth Century French Literature. Geneva: Droz, 1966. Sozzi, Lionello. “La polémique anti-italienne en France au XVIe siècle.” Atti della Accademia della Scienze di Torino, 106 (1972): 99–190. Strong, Roy. Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals, 1450–1650. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984. Sullivan, Mary Saint Francis. Etienne du Tronchet: auteur forézien du XVIe siècle. Etude biographique et littéraire. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1931. Sutherland, Nicola Mary. Catherine de Medici and the Ancien Régime. London: Historical Association, 1966. __________. “Catherine de Medici: The Legend of the Wicked Italian Queen.” Sixteenth Century Journal 9, no. 2, France in the Sixteenth Century (July 1978): 45–56.

Bibliography 267 __________. The French Secretaries of State in the Age of Catherine de Medici. London: Athlone Press, 1962. __________. The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980. __________. Princes, Politics and Religion, 1547–1589. London: Hambledon Press, 1984. __________. “Was There an Inquisition in Reformation France?” In Princes, Politics and Religion, 1547–1589, 13–30. London: Hambledon Press, 1984. Taylor, Craig. “The Salic Law and the Valois Succession to the French Crown.” French History 15, no. 4 (December 2001): 358–77. __________. “The Salic Law, French Queenship, and the Defense of Women in the Late Middle Ages.” French Historical Studies 29, no. 4 (Fall 2006): 543– 64. Thompson, James. The Wars of Religion in France, 1559–1576. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909. Thysell, Carol. “Gender and Genre: Marguerite de Navarre and the Tradition of Allegorical Rhetoric.” In The Pleasure of Discernment: Marguerite de Navarre as Theologian, 3–181. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Tomas, Natalie R. The Medici Women: Gender and Power in Renaissance Florence. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003. Vauvilliers, Mlle. Histoire de Jeanne d’Albret, Reine de Navarre (Paris: Louis Janet, 1818). Viennot, Eliane. Marguerite de Valois: Histoire d’une femme, histoire d’un mythe. Paris: Editions Payot, 1993. Wagner, John. Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006. Warner, Lyndan. The Ideas of Man and Woman in Renaissance France: Print, Rhetoric, and Law. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. Wellman, Kathleen. Queens and Mistresses of Renaissance France. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013. Wolf, Armin. “Reigning Queens in Medieval Europe: When, Where, and Why.” In Medieval Queenship, edited by John Carmi Parsons, 169–88. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Wood, Ian. “Deconstructing the Merovingian Family.” In The Construction of Communities in the Early Middle Ages: Texts, Resources and Artefacts, edited by Richard Corradini, Max Diesenberger, and Helmut Reimitz, 149–71. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Yates, Frances. The Valois Tapestries. 1959. Reprint, New York: Routledge, 1999. Zvereva, Alexandra. Les Clouet de Catherine de Médicis: Chefs-d’œuvre graphiques du Musée Condé. Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2002.

Index Please note: In subentries, Catherine de Médicis is referred to as “Catherine,” and her children Elisabeth, Marguerite, and François-Hercule by their first names. Antoine de Bourbon is referred to as “Antoine of Navarre”; Henri de Bourbon, as “Henri of Navarre”; and Louis Ier de Bourbon, prince de Condé, as “Condé.” The Discours merveilleux is abbreviated as “DM.” Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations. Adrian VI, pope, 243 “Affair of the Placards,” 17–18 An Alarm for the French and Their Neighbors. See Le Reveille-matin des francois, et de leurs voisins, selections from Alba, Fernando Alvarez de Toledo y Pimentel, Duke of, 83, 130, 159–60, 217n16, 228 Albany, John Stuart, Duke of: Catherine’s letter to, 63–64 Albigensians, 129, 170 Albret, Henri d’. See Henri d’Albret Albret, Jeanne d’. See Jeanne d’Albret Alexander the Great, 237n61, 238, 239n66, 246 Alexander VI, pope, 71n26 Alexandrin, Cardinal (Michele Bonelli), 160–61 Amboise conspiracy, 9n32, 18, 21, 115n16, 194n46; Catherine’s letter on, 67; Condé and, 18n69, 78n40, 116–17, 154n41, 163n66, 193–94 Ampuis, Laurent de Maugiron, sieur d’, 178 Anne d’Autriche, 3n6, 6n13 Anne de Bretagne, 2n3; Brantôme on, 181, 207 Anne de France (Anne de Beaujeu), 2n3, 14n52, 170–71 Antoine de Bourbon, king consort of Navarre, 9, 25, 84, 174, 223; Catherine’s alleged corruption of, 156, 158; Catherine’s letter to, 68; as Catherine’s lieutenant general, 14, 20, 72–79, 80n44,

83n58, 121–22, 125, 153–56, 193–95, 196n50; on eve of war, 86, 87; vs Guises, 114–17, 121–23, 126, 194–96; and Philip II/claim to Spanish Navarre, 20n73, 75, 81–82, 83, 83n58; and reconversion to Catholicism, 196; Relazioni on, 113–17, 121–24, 125, 126–28; and “Triumvirate,” 196–97 Ardois, Firmin d’, 203 Armagnac, Georges d’, cardinal, 127 Athalia (Judean queen), 193, 245 Babou de la Bourdaisière, Philibert, bishop of Angoulême, 70 Barbaro, Marc’Antonio, 124–28 Barnaud, Nicholas, 225n32 battles: Dreux, 166; Moncontour, 166–67; Pavia, 150, 152n34, 186n19; Saint Quentin (Saint Lawrence), 199, 217, 245 Beaune, Jacques de, baron de Semblançay, 171 Beaune, Renaud de, archbishop of Bourges, 171n92, 182n8. See also entry below Beaune, Renaud de, funeral oration for Catherine: Brantôme’s borrowing from, 53, 182–83, 193n42; Pasquier on, 251; selections from, 241–49 Belleforest, François de, 171–72 Bellièvre, Pomponne de, 96 Bentivoglio, Cornelio, 152 Bertrand, Jean, Keeper of the Seals, 8n27, 163, 191n34 269

270 Index Bèze, Théodore de, 17n65, 43, 225n32 Bible, books of: Genesis, 217, 244; Psalms, 213–16, 218, 249; Revelation, 248; Samuel, 244 Bible, figures of: Daniel, 227, 247n76; Elijah, 218, 218n19, 231n54; Hannah, 244n72; Jezebel, 218n19, 229–31; Joseph, 243; Judith, 246, 247; Moses, 218, 243; Sarah, 244, 247; Susannah, 247; Tobit, 244 Biron, Armand de Gontaut, sieur de: and conference at Nérac, 101–2; DM on, 162, 166, 167; Henri IV and, 206; and siege of La Rochelle, 134n57, 162n65, 221n25 Blanche de Castile, queen consort of France: Catherine on, 40, 129, 170; as regent, 10, 120, 129, 169–70 Boccaccio, Giovanni, 51n161, 143; De mulieribus claris, 51n164, 52–53, 181 Bochetel, Bernardin, bishop of Rennes: Catherine’s letter to, 69–71; and copies of Catherine’s letters to Condé, 33, 86–88 Bois-Février, seigneur de, 190 Bouillon, Godefroy de, 184 Boulogne (House of), as Catherine’s maternal family, 6, 47, 182, 184–85, 242 Boulogne, Eustache III de, 184 Bourbon (House of). See entries below; Antoine de Bourbon; Condé, Henri Ier de Bourbon, prince de, and entry following; Enghien, François de Bourbon, duc d’; Henri de Bourbon; Montpensier, Louis II de Bourbon, duc de Bourbon, Antoinette de, dowager duchesse de Guise: Catherine’s letter to, 67 Bourbon, Charles de, cardinal, 95, 135, 157, 179n106, 197n53; and conference at Nérac, 102, 106; as considered rightful king of France, 206, 250n85; imprisonment/death

of, 206, 250, 250n85; and marriage of Marguerite to Henri of Navarre, 161–62; Relazioni on, 115, 116, 117, 135–36 Bourbon, François de, dauphin d’Auvergne, 102 Bourbon-Conti, François de, 179n106 Bourg, Anne de, 18, 218n19 Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeille, Seigneur de: “Discours sur la Reyne, mere de noys roys derniers, Catherine de Médicis,” 49–55; as borrowing from Beaune, 53, 182–83, 193n42; detailed personal descriptions by, 188–91, 203–6; as response to DM, 51–53, 55, 182, 191, 198–200, 203–4; selections from, 181–208 Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeille, Seigneur de, Recueil des Dames, poésies et tombeaux, 49–51; vol. 1 (Les Dames illustres), 49–50; vol. 2 (Les Dames galantes), 49–50, 208n91 Brézé, Louis de, grand sénéchal of Normandy, 112n5, 152n37. See also Poitiers, Diane de Briçonnet, Guillaume, 19 Briquemault, François de Beauvais, seigneur de, 168–69 Brûlart, Pierre, 220 Brunhilda (Visigothic queen), Catherine as compared to: in DM, 47–48, 169, 171–80; in Reveillematin, 229, 230 Caligula, 239 Calvinism, 103n86, 155; in DM phraseology, 143; of Guyenne, 83, 101, 107, 195 Cappello, Giovanni, 38, 112–13 Caracalla, 239 Carlos (son of Philip II of Spain), 3n5; and potential marriage to Mary Stuart, 75, 82

Index 271 Catherine de Médicis, 1–30; birth of, 5; character of, 41–42, 114–15, 125, 131, 189, 190–91, 203; children of, 7–8; court of, 204–6; as devout Christian, 123–24, 125, 127, 204, 205; expenditures/debts of, 2, 115, 138, 158–59, 202–3; family tree of, 57; Florentine lineage of, 5–7; French lineage of, 6, 7, 47, 52, 181n3, 182, 184–85, 242; letters of, 1, 31–36, 63–109; letters of naturalization for, 210–11; notoriety of, 2, 15–16, 24–30, 42–49; as patron of arts, 1, 14–15, 16, 47, 190, 202; as regent, 3–4, 8–11, 13–15; sense of humor of, 30, 107, 190, 203; shifting policies/opinions of, 4, 29–30; textual portraits of, 1–5, 30–56; and Wars of Religion, 7–8, 15–30; and women’s right to rule, 2–3, 11–15, 47–49. See also entries below; specific topics and texts Catherine de Médicis, death of, 11, 23, 247; Beaune’s funeral oration on, 53, 182–83, 241–49; Brantôme on, 206–7; debts owing at time of, 138, 202; and interment, 138, 207, 251; Mocenigo on, 137–39; and murder of duc de Guise, 206–7, 250–51, 252; Pasquier on, 250–53; as treated in Reveille-matin, 231 Catherine de Médicis, Florentine lineage of, 5–7; and anti-Italianism, 6, 26n95, 42, 46–47, 133, 219n20; Beaune on, 242–43; Brantôme on, 52, 53, 182–86, 204; DM on, 46–47, 48, 143–53, 172, 177, 242n69; as emphasized over her French origins, 6, 7, 52, 122n32; as “foreign,” 6, 7, 45, 48, 52, 55, 114, 122, 129, 131, 133, 172, 182, 234, 242, 252; and “Frenchness”/French nobility, 114, 143–44, 199–200; as of “low” stock, 6, 118, 122, 143–44, 185, 230, 234; Relazioni on, 42,

114, 122, 124–25; and reputation for Machiavellianism, 1, 24n89, 28–29, 47, 47n149, 168, 237–38, 240; Reveille-matin on, 225, 227, 229–30; and spoken French of, 7n22, 52, 204; Tocsain on, 234, 235 Catherine de Médicis, letters of, 1, 31–36, 63; copies of, 33, 203, 203n79; and danger of misinterpretation, 32–33; as delivered with oral messages, 32, 36, 64, 71, 88; as dictated to secretaries, 31, 33–34, 63; and epistolary culture, 31–36; as handwritten, 31–32, 203; as instruments of diplomacy, 35, 36, 94n71; messengers of, 32, 64, 75–76, 81, 84, 85, 88, 92; and narrative of massacre/war, 32–33, 90n66, 164–65; persona emerging from, 31, 34, 36; as personal/ intimate, 31, 35; photographs of, 59–62; portrait created by, 35–36; privacy of, 31, 33; selections from, 63–109 Catherine de Médicis, marriage of, 1, 5; Beaune on, 243–44; Brantôme on, 185–87, 191–93; Clement VII’s role in, 6, 145n14, 149–51, 184n13, 186, 234, 243; DM on, 47, 149–53, 173; and dowry, 6, 7, 8n24, 185, 186, 243–44; and early childlessness, 8, 124, 152, 187, 212–15, 234–35, 244; François Ier’s care of Catherine before, 195n47, 204–5, 206, 244; and Henri II’s adultery, 8, 111–12, 118, 152–53, 212, 216; and Henri II’s death, 8, 66–67, 70, 72, 191–93, 217–18, 245; as politically expedient, 6, 150–51, 186; Relazioni on, 38, 41, 111–13, 118, 124; and role as regent, 4, 8, 190–91, 244–45. See also Henri II, King of France Catherine de Médicis, maternity of: as extending to “all subjects,” 104; in

272 Index her household and family, 200–2; in her letters to her children, 35, 71–73, 75–76, 95–97; in her letters to Humières/Joana of Portugal, 64–67; in her relationships with nobles, 86, 200–1, 204; polemical “letters” to Catherine on, 216–17, 219; and regency, 2–4, 7–10; Reveille-matin on, 231–32; and sons as successors, 69; Tocsain on, 234–40; unifying power of, 21n79 Catherine de Médicis, as mediator between Catholics and Huguenots, 20–24; Brantôme on, 195–98; Condé and, 23n84, 77–78, 86–88, 155, 195, 197n53; and conference at Nérac, 11, 99–109; vs demonizing/polemical portraits painted by opponents, 24–30 Catherine de Médicis, as regent: for Charles IX, 4, 9–10, 14, 16–17, 22, 46, 69–83, 113–15, 118–24, 126–28, 153–56, 193–95; for Henri II, 4, 8, 190–91, 244–45; for Henri III, 4, 10–11, 22, 43–46, 93–98, 246; maternal status as justification for, 2–4, 7–10; power/authority of, 13–14, 72–73, 74–75, 79, 85, 114, 124, 132, 193; precedents for, 8n27, 10, 14; and ruling of Estates General, 4, 9, 76–79, 154–55, 157, 193, 245; under Salic law, 8–11, 228; and securing of both curatelle and tutelle, 10n33, 72n28, 76n36, 76n38, 121n30, 171n91; without royal designation, 4, 9 Catholic League, 11, 23, 195n48, 206n87, 250nn84–85 Cavalli, Marino, 36n123, 38, 111–12; on Diane de Poitiers, 111–12, 152n37 Châlon, Philibert de, Prince of Orange, 148, 150 Chantonnay, Thomas Perrenot de, 79–80, 80n44 Charlemagne, 183

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, 117, 148, 204, 214, 223n28; François Ier’s alliances in opposition to, 6, 98n80, 146, 148, 150–51, 186; François Ier’s imprisonment by, 150, 152n34, 186n19; vs Henri II, 181, 245n73 Charles VI, King of France, 4n8, 170; minority rule of, 120–21 Charles VII, King of France, 170n89 Charles VIII, King of France: minority rule of, 121, 170–71 Charles IX, King of France, 1, 251; birth of, 244; Catherine as regent for, 4, 9–10, 14, 16–17, 22, 46, 69–83, 113–15, 118–24, 126–28, 153–56, 193–95; Catherine’s alleged corruption of, 153, 158, 236–37, 238–39; character of, 38–39, 70, 113, 119, 124, 133, 153; as child, 113; on Coligny’s murder, 90–92; death of, 4, 10, 43, 44, 93–95, 97, 173, 223, 246; and era of religious violence, 20, 22, 23; Huguenot plots against, 130, 196, 197–98; hunting by, 124, 133, 221, 234, 236; majority rule of, 10, 21, 22, 84, 136, 157–60, 234, 246; marriage of, 21, 85, 205; Reveille-matin on, 226; royal tour of, 21, 84, 159, 246; and siege of La Rochelle, 134n57, 221; and St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, 25–26, 28, 45–46, 90–92, 164–65, 238–40 Châtillon brothers, 154–55, 158. See also Coligny, François de, and entries following Chenonceau (château), 84 Cheverny, Philippe Hurault de, 135 childlessness/infertility, as early concern for Catherine, 8, 124, 152, 187, 212–15, 234–35, 244 Cicada, Giovanni Battista, cardinal, 70 Circe, 141–42, 142n3 Circle of Meaux, 19

Index 273 Clairvaux, René de Villequier, baron de, 237 Claude de France, queen consort of François Ier, 126n42 Claude de Valois (Catherine’s daughter), 66, 113n11, 125, 251, 252 Clement VII, pope (Catherine’s cousin), 6n15, 47, 63n4, 124, 184; and Catherine’s marriage, 6, 145n14, 149–51, 184n13, 186, 234, 243; death of, 6n18, 148; DM on, 145, 147–51, 157 Clement VIII, pope, 116, 123 Clermont-Tallard, Louise de, duchesse d’Uzès, 137–38; Catherine’s letter to, 106–7, 222n27 Clothar (Frankish king), 174, 178, 179, 180 Cognac (Huguenot stronghold), 195 Coligny, François de, seigneur d’Andelot, 154n42, 199, 221 Coligny, Gaspard II de, admiral of France: and Amboise conspiracy, 194n46; and calling of Estates General, 76n36; murder of, 25–28, 88, 90–92, 120n25, 154n42, 162–63, 173, 198–99, 228, 229; Relazioni on, 120, 123, 127 Coligny, Odet de, cardinal, 154n42; death of, 173, 221; Relazioni on, 123, 126, 127 commedia dell’arte, 190 Commodus, 239 Condé, Henri Ier de Bourbon, prince de, 134, 162–63, 173, 178, 179n106, 223, 224 Condé, Louis Ier de Bourbon, prince de, 20; and Amboise conspiracy, 9n32, 18n69, 78n40, 116–17, 154n41, 163n66, 193–94; Catherine’s alleged corruption of, 158; and Catherine’s efforts as mediator, 23n84, 77–78, 86–88, 155, 195, 197n53; Catherine’s letters to, 33, 86–88, 197n53; death

of, 120n25,154n42; imprisonment of, 115; release/pardon of, 121, 154; and return to government, 76, 117, 157; and “surprise of Meaux,” 198n56 Contay, Françoise de, 64 Corneille de Lyon (painter), 188 Correro, Giovanni, 128–33; on Catherine, 39–40, 41, 128–32; on Charles IX, 38–39, 133; on Huguenots, 39–40, 128–30 Cossé, Timoléon de, 166 Cossé-Brissac, Artus de, comte de Secondigny/maréchal de Cossé, 162, 166–67, 176, 177; Catherine’s joke about, 107; imprisonment of, 178, 222 Cossé-Brissac, Charles Ier de, maréchal de Brissac, 166 Council of Trent, 70–71 Crespin, Jean, 44n139 curatelle (administrative function of regency), 10n33, 72n28, 76n36, 76n38, 121n30, 171n91 Cybo, Innocenzo, cardinal, 64 Cybo, Lorenzo, comte de Tunarra, 63–64 “Day of the Barricades,” 11n40, 250n84 Dido, 206, 247 Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportemens de Catherine de Médicis, Roine Mère, 42–49, 55; on astrological predictions about Catherine, 149–50, 151, 172; authorship of, 43; Brantôme’s responses to, 51–53, 55, 182, 191, 198–200, 203–4; Catherine’s awareness of, 134, 182; on Catherine’s Florentine origins, 45– 47, 143–53; on Catherine’s gender/ women as rulers, 45, 46, 47–48, 169–80; on Catherine’s regency, 153–56; on Charles IX’s majority, 157–60; on Coligny’s murder/

274 Index St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, 162–69; and comparisons to Brunhilda, 47–48, 169, 171–80; editions/versions of, 42–45, 141n1; goals of, 43; Goulart’s publication of, 44; on marriage of Marguerite and Henri of Navarre, 160–62; popularity/wide readership of, 48–49; selections from, 141–80 Domitian, 238–39 Dubois, François: Le Massacre de la Saint–Barthélemy (painting), 27–28, 58 Duc, Philippa, 8n25 duelling, Catherine’s disapproval of, 200–1 Edicts: of Amboise (Pacification), 23, 90–92, 157; of January (SaintGermain), 22n82, 23, 29, 156, 157, 228n45; of Nantes, 23; of Pacification (Boulogne), 228; of Poitiers, 100–1, 103–4, 106, 108 Eleanor of Austria, queen consort of François Ier, 126 Elisabeth de Valois (Catherine’s daughter), queen consort of Philip II of Spain, 82n55; birth of, 187, 244; Catherine’s letters/advice to, 32, 35, 71–73, 75–76, 83–85, 122n31; as child, 66, 113n11; death of, 252; marriage of, 3n5, 8, 66n13, 125, 192n37, 200, 217n18, 228, 245, 251; photographs of Catherine’s letters to, 60–62 Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 2n3, 106n89, 199n63, 224n31; and proposed marriage to FrançoisHercule, 102, 160n57 Elizabeth of Austria, queen consort of Charles IX, 21, 204, 205 Enghien, François de Bourbon, duc d’, 152 Estates General: and Catherine’s claim to regency, 4, 9, 76–79, 154–55, 157, 193, 245

Este, Ippolito II d’, cardinal de Ferrara, 185 Estienne, Henri, 43 Etampes, Jean de Brosse, duc de: Catherine’s letter to, 76–77 “Eusèbe Philadelphe,” as author of Reveille-Matin, 225n32 Farel, Guillaume, 17, 19 Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, 69n20, 70–71 Ferdinand II of Aragon, 71n26, 82n51 Ferrera, Alfonso d’Este, Duke of, 150 Ferrera, Alfonso II d’Este, Duke of, 94n71; Catherine’s letter to, 94 Ferrières, Jean II de, vidame de Chartres, 233–34 Fontenilles, Philippe de La Roche, baron de, 109 Fourquevaux, Raimond Beccarie de Pavie, seigneur de, 178 François Ier, King of France: Catherine at court of, 195n47, 204–5, 206, 244; and Catherine’s marriage to Henri II, 6, 150–51, 186, 195n47, 243–44; vs Charles V, 6, 98n80, 146, 150–51, 186; as Charles V’s prisoner, 150, 152n34, 186n19; death of, 153; and duchy of Milan, 6, 151, 171, 186, 192n38; hunting by, 189; and letters of naturalization for Catherine and her father, 210–11; and Marot’s translation of psalms, 213–14; mother as regent for, 3n6, 8n27, 10n34, 171, 171n92; as patron of Italian art/culture, 7, 47; and Protestantism, 17–18, 126, 214–15 François II, King of France, 1, 119, 136, 251; birth of, 187, 215, 244; brief reign of, 4n7, 8–9, 66–69; as child, 64–66, 112–13, 187; death of, 9, 68–69, 70, 72, 94n71, 115n16, 117n19, 125, 153, 253; and Estates General, 76n36, 78, 154; and

Index 275 Guises’ power/influence, 9, 18, 74–75, 79, 194n46, 216, 217, 219; Huguenot plot against, 18, 21, 67, 115n16, 116–17, 154n41, 194n46; and marriage to Mary Stuart, 9, 49n155, 75n33, 113, 125, 185, 245, 252–53 François de Valois, duc de Bretagne (brother of Henri II): death of, 6n18, 8, 152, 173, 244 François-Hercule, duc d’Anjou et d’Alençon (Catherine’s son), 72, 94, 95, 96, 113n10, 244, 251; Catherine’s imprisonment of, 173, 178, 223, 223n29; death of, 221; political activity of, 222n27, 223n29; and proposed marriage to Elizabeth I, 102, 160n57; Relazioni on, 119, 125, 134–35; Tocsain on, 237 Fredegund (Frankish queen), 169, 171, 229, 230 Germany: Catherine’s regency during Henri II’s campaign in, 191, 245; Catherine’s warning to Henri III to avoid, 95–96; Charles IX’s letter to princes of, 91–92 Giovio, Paolo, bishop of Nocera de’Pagani, 145, 149n26, 181 Gómez de Silva, Rui, 81, 83 Gondi, Albert de, maréchal de Retz, 135, 135n59, 201; and acquisition of Versailles, 163, 163n68; as blamed for St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, 157n50, 168; DM on, 157, 163, 168, 173–76; Reveillematin on, 227, 230 Goulart, Simon: Mémoires de l’estat de France sous Charles neufiesme, 26n95, 44 Gramont, Gabriel de, cardinal, 150 Gregory I, pope, 172, 172n94 Gregory XIII, pope, 161–62, 239; Catherine’s letter to, 88, 89–90

Gregory of Tours, 169n85, 172, 229n50 Guicciardini, Francesco, 38, 145, 147 Guise (House of): Amboise conspiracy against, 18, 21, 67, 116–17, 154, 193–94; vs Antoine of Navarre/ Bourbons, 114–17, 121–23, 126, 194–96; and Catholic League, 11, 23, 250n84; and Condé, 77–78; and departure from court, 39, 78, 122, 123, 127; DM’s exoneration of, 45, 161–69; as “foreigners,” 219; and massacre at Wassy, 22; and murder of Coligny/St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, 25–27, 90–92, 161–69; power/ influence of, 9, 18, 74–75, 79, 194n46, 216, 217, 219, 226–27, 233–34. See also entries below; Lorraine, Charles de, cardinal de Lorraine; Lorraine, Louis Ier de, cardinal de Guise Guise, Claude de Lorraine, duc de, 67n14 Guise, François de Lorraine, duc de, 9, 18, 79, 116, 126, 174; Catherine and, 123, 196–97; and departure from court, 39, 78, 122, 123, 127; and massacre at Wassy, 22, 197n53; and rescue of Pope Paul IV, 217n16; and siege of Rouen, 199–200; Tocsain on, 237; and “Triumvirate,” 196–97 Guise, Henri de Lorraine, duc de: Catherine’s negotiations with, 11n40; corruption of, 237; “letter” to, 225–26; murder of, and Catherine’s reaction to, 206–7, 250–51, 252; and murder of Coligny, 25–27; and protection of Huguenots, 27, 167–68 Guise, Louis II, cardinal de, 250n84 Guyenne (Calvinist stronghold), 83, 101, 107, 195 Havre de Grâce, 157, 199, 245

276 Index Henri II, King of France, 1, 5; Catherine as regent for, 4, 8, 244–45; Catherine’s mourning for, 2n2, 21, 136, 192–93, 205, 245; vs Charles V, 181, 245n73; as dauphin, 6n18, 8, 111–12, 212–13; death of, 8, 66–67, 70, 72, 191–93, 217–18, 245; and Diane de Poitiers, 21n79, 84n59, 111–12, 118, 152–53, 212, 216; illegitimate children of, 8, 8n25, 212; and persecution of Huguenots, 18, 20n75, 29; vs Philip II, 185n16, 191, 217, 245n74. See also Catherine de Médicis, marriage of Henri III, King of France, 1, 22, 133–35, 188, 237, 244, 251; assassination of, 23; Catherine as regent for, 4, 10–11, 22, 43–46, 93–98, 246; and Catherine’s death, 206–7, 250–51, 252; and Catherine’s imprisonment of François-Hercule and Henri de Bourbon, 173, 178, 223, 223n29; Catherine’s letters to, 95–97, 99–106; and Catholic League/ duc de Guise, 11, 23, 207, 250, 250nn84–85; as child, 72, 113, 125, 201–2; and conference at Nérac, 11, 99–106; corruption of, 237; as king of Poland, 10, 93–98, 134n57, 221–23, 246, 251; marriage of, 205; and return to France, 10–11, 43, 93–98, 133–34, 178, 201; and siege of La Rochelle, 134n57, 221n25 Henri IV, King of France: and Edict of Nantes, 23; and hatred of Catherine, 206. See also Henri de Bourbon Henri d’Albret (Henri II of Navarre), 19 Henri de Bourbon (Henri III of Navarre), 233n56; Catherine’s imprisonment of, 173, 178, 223, 223n29; Catherine’s letter to, 107– 9; and conference at Nérac, 11n39, 99–109; as Henri IV of France, 23;

marriage of, 25, 88, 89–90, 160–62, 165, 185n15, 251–52 Henry, King of Portugal, 105, 185n15 Henry VIII, King of England, 5n11, 151 Hôpital, Michel de l’, chancellor of France, 78, 95, 115n16, 123, 126, 135; and colloquy at Poissy, 21n77, 155n45; as political moderate, 123n34 Horace, 216 horseback riding, Catherine’s skill at/ love of, 115, 189, 199, 200, 205–6 Horte (Orthe), vicomte de: Catherine’s letter to, 90; Charles IX’s letter to, 90–91 Hotman, François, 172n93; De Furoribus gallicus, 163n67; Gaule françois, 170n86 Huguenots, 15–30; Amboise conspiracy of, 18, 21; Catherine and, 39–40, 128–30, 131, 155–56, 159, 170, 174–75, 203, 228; Catherine’s efforts at mediation with, 11, 20–24, 99–109, 195–98; duc de Guise’s protection of, 27, 167–68; François Ier and, 17–18, 126, 214–15; among French nobility/royal court, 19–20, 25, 115–17; Henri II’s persecution of, 18, 20n75, 29; laws allowing restricted worship by, 22n82, 23, 29, 156, 157; and marriage of Marguerite and Henri of Navarre, 160–62; and massacre at Wassy, 22–23, 24–25; and origin of term, 17; and St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, 24–30. See also St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres; Wars of Religion Humières, Jean d’: Catherine’s letters to, 64–66 hunting: Catherine’s love of, 115, 125, 189, 198, 205–6; by Charles IX, 124, 133, 221, 234, 236

Index 277 Innocent III, pope, 129n46, 170, 170n86 Isabeau, duchesse de Lorraine, 192–93 Isabeau of Bavaria, queen consort of Charles VI, 4n8, 6n13, 10, 14n52, 170, 171n91 Isabella of Castile, 71n26 James V, King of Scotland, 63n3, 113n8 Jeanne d’Albret, Queen of Navarre, 19–20; death of, 161, 221; and son’s marriage to Marguerite, 25, 160–61 Jeanne de Valois (Catherine’s daughter), 217 Jezebel, 218n19, 229–31 Joana, princess of Portugal: Catherine’s letter to, 66–67 João III, King of Portugal, 66n12 João Manuel, infant of Portugal, 66n12 Joyeuse, Guillaume de, vicomte de, 101, 178 Juan of Austria, 223 Judith of Bavaria (Frankish queen), 169, 169n85 Julius II, pope, 146, 147 La Châtaigneraie et d’Ardelay, Charles II de Vivonne, baron de, 200–1 Languedoc (Huguenot stronghold), 101, 162n64; Albigensians in, 129n46, 170n86 La Réole (Huguenot stronghold), 103, 103n86 La Rochelle (Huguenot stronghold), 49; siege of, 134, 135n61, 162n65, 214–15, 221, 228, 246 La Roche-sur-Yon, Charles, Prince de, 115, 117 La Tour d’Auvergne, Anne de, comtesse d’Auvergne, 63n3 La Tour d’Auvergne, Henri de. See Turenne, Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne, vicomte de

La Tour d’Auvergne, Madeleine de (Catherine’s mother), 6, 47; death of, 5n10, 187, 210, 243; family of, 6, 47, 182, 184–85, 242 Laubespine, Claude de, baron de Châteauneuf, 223–24 Laubespine, Claude II de (Catherine’s secretary), 69n19, 74n31, 75, 81, 84, 85, 86 Laubespine, Sébastien de, bishop of Limoges: Catherine’s letters to, 74–76, 77–86; photograph of Catherine’s letter to, 59 Lauzerte (Huguenot stronghold), 103, 103n86 Lefèvre d’Etaples, Jacques, 19 Leo X, pope (Catherine’s great-uncle), 41, 47, 63n4, 124, 181n4, 184, 202, 243; Catherine’s resemblance to, 112, 146; DM on, 145, 146–47, 149; and sale of indulgences, 146–47 Leonardo da Vinci, 7n20 Lestelle, Louis de Brunet, seigneur de, 196 letters of Catherine de Médicis. See Catherine de Médicis, letters of, and specific recipients of letters by name “letters” to Catherine, after Henri II’s death, 212–24; on Catherine’s childlessness, 212–15; on Catherine’s involvement in poisonings/murders, 221–24; on Catherine’s maternity/upbringing of her sons, 216–17, 219; on Charles IX and Henri III, 221–23; on Guises, 216, 217, 219; on François-Hercule and his supporters, 221, 222, 223; on Henri II’s adultery, 212–13, 216; on St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, 220, 221 “Letters of Naturalization for Lorenzo de’ Medici, Duke of Urbino,

278 Index and Catherine, His Daughter” (François Ier), 210–11 Limeuil, Isabelle de, 158 Lippomano, Girolamo, 136–37 Loménie, Martial de, 163 Longwy, Jacqueline de, comtesse de Bar-sur-Seine, duchesse de Montpensier, 117, 135n61; and Catherine’s agreement with Antoine of Navarre, 78, 80n44, 117n20, 154, 193–94 Lorges, Gabriel de, comte de Montgomery, 218 Lorraine, Charles de, cardinal de Lorraine, 9, 18, 216, 219; and marriage of Marguerite and Henri of Navarre, 161; Relazioni on, 117, 122, 126, 127 Lorraine, Louis Ier de, cardinal de Guise, 9n29, 185 Louis IX, King of France (later Saint Louis), 125, 169–70; minority rule of, 120, 121 Louis XI, King of France, 182 Louis de Valois, duc d’Orléans (Catherine’s son), 10n37, 113n10, 217n15, 244 Louise de Lorraine, queen consort of Henri III, 204, 204n82, 205n85, 244 Louise de Savoie (mother of François Ier), 14n52; as regent, 3n6, 8n27, 10n34, 171, 171n92 Louviers, Charles de (Maurevel), 162, 168 Louvre, 25, 91, 92, 162, 173, 223n29, 251 Luther, Martin, 147 Lutheranism, 151, 155 Machiavelli, Niccolò, 39, 47, 47n149. See also entries below Machiavelli, Niccolò, The Prince: as dedicated to Catherine’s father, 6n14; DM on, 144, 168;

as influence on Catherine, 168, 237–38, 240 Machiavellianism, Catherine’s reputation for, 24n89; as tied to religious strife/St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, 1, 28–29, 47, 47n149, 168, 240; and upbringing of her sons, 237–38, 240 Marcourt, Antoine, 17n65 Marguerite de Navarre (sister of François Ier), queen consort of Henri II de Navarre, 17, 49; and Circle of Meaux, 19; polemical “letter” to Catherine on, 213, 214–15 Marguerite de Valois (Catherine’s daughter), queen consort of Henri III of Navarre, 135, 244; as child, 82, 113n11, 125; and conference at Nérac, 100, 101, 103–4, 107; marriage of, 25, 88, 89–90, 160–62, 165, 185n15, 251–52; negative portrayals of, 24n89 Marie Antoinette, queen consort of France, 6n13 Marie de Guise, queen consort of Scotland, 9n29, 113n8 Marie de Médicis, queen consort of France, 6n13 Marot, Clément, 19; and translation of psalms, 213–15 Marvelous Discourse on the Life, Actions, and Deportment of Catherine de Médicis, Queen Mother. See Discours merveilleux de la vie, actions et deportemens de Catherine de Médicis, Roine Mère Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, 49, 113n8, 224n31; and marriage to François II, 9, 49n155, 75n33, 113, 125, 185, 245, 252–53; and potential marriage to Don Carlos, 75, 82 Mary Tudor, Queen of France, 2n3 Matignon, Jacques II de Goyon de: Catherine’s letter to, 97–98

Index 279 Maurevel (Charles de Louviers), 162, 168 Meaux: Circle of, 19; “surprise” of, 130, 197–98, 198n56 Medici (family): Brantôme on, 182–84; DM on, 143–45; “low” status of, 6, 118, 122, 143–44, 185, 230, 234. See also entries below; Clement VII, pope; Leo X, pope Medici, Alessandro de, 149, 151 Medici, Clarice de. See Strozzi, Clarice Medici, Cosimo de, 143n7, 145, 184 Medici, Cosimo I de, Grand Duke of Tuscany, 144 Medici, “Lorenzaccio” de, 149n26 Medici, Lorenzo de (“Lorenzo the Magnificent”), 145, 184, 202 Medici, Lorenzo di Piero de, Duke of Urbino (Catherine’s father), 6, 47, 114; and connection with Machiavelli, 6n14; death of, 5n10, 187, 243; DM on, 149, 172; letters of naturalization for, 210–11 Medici, Salvestro de, 143 Michiel, Giovanni, 38, 45, 113–18, 133– 36; on Anne de Montmorency, 116, 117–18; on Antoine of Navarre, 113–17; on Bourbon and Guise factions, 114–18; on Catherine, 41–42, 45, 113–15, 133–36; on Condé, 116–17, 134; on François-Hercule, 134–35; on Henri III, 133–35 Milan, duchy of, 6, 151, 171, 186, 192n38 Mocenigo, Giovanni: on Catherine’s death/funeral, 137–39 Montecuculli, Sebastiano de, 152n34 Montmorency, Anne de, constable of France, 73, 78, 127, 173, 174, 176, 177, 200; and Amboise conspiracy, 117; and Battle of Saint Quentin, 245n74; Catherine’s relationship with, 117–18, 153, 158; death of, 166, 167; sons of, 162, 166,

167, 168; and “Triumvirate,” 196; as uncle of Châtillon brothers, 123n35, 154, 158 Montmorency, Charles de, 162 Montmorency, François de, 162, 166, 167, 168; imprisonment of, 178, 222 Montmorency, Gabriel de, baron de Montberon, 166 Montmorency, Guillaume de, 162 Montmorency-Damville, Henri de, governor of Languedoc, 134, 162, 166, 167, 168, 224; imprisonment of, 178, 223; and peace truce with Huguenots, 134n57 Montpensier, Louis II de Bourbon, duc de, 101, 104, 117, 127, 135–36. See also Longwy, Jacqueline de Montreuil, Jean de, 13 Mothe-Fénelon, Bertrand de Salignac, sieur de la, 99–101, 106 Navarre, kings and queens of. See Antoine de Bourbon; Henri d’Albret; Henri de Bourbon; Jeanne d’Albret; Marguerite de Navarre; Marguerite de Valois Nemours, Jacques de Savoie, duc de, 188 Nérac, conference at, 11; agreement reached at, 99; Catherine’s letters during/following, 99–109 Nero, 238 Nevers, Louis Gonzaga, duc de, 135, 162–63, 201, 201n74 Nostradamus, Michel de, 227 Noue, François de la (Huguenot captain), 198 Orlando Furioso (Ariosto), heroines of: Ginevra, 202; Marfisa, 199 Ottoman Empire. See Selim II; Turks Ovid, 51n161 Pardaillan, Hector de, sieur de Montespan et de Gondrin, 200–1

280 Index Pasquier, Etienne, 250n82; on Catherine’s death, 250–53 Paul IV, pope, 185n16, 217n16 Penelope, 247 Perceforest, stories of, 237 Perrissin, Jean, and Jacques Tortorel, 18n69, 22n83 Petrarch, 217 Philip II of Macedonia, 238n62, 246 Philip II, King of Spain: alliance of Henri II and Paul IV against, 185n16, 191, 217, 245n74; vs Antoine of Navarre, 20n73, 75, 81–82, 83, 83n58; Catherine on, 72–73, 75, 79–80, 81–85; Catherine’s alleged promise of French crown to, 223, 228; Catherine’s letter to, 92; and marriage to Elisabeth, 3n5, 8, 66n13, 125, 192n37, 200, 217n18, 228, 245, 251; and Portuguese throne, 104n88, 184–85; and rumored poisoning death of Elisabeth, 252n89 Pisselieu d’Heilly, Anne de, 76n35 Pius IV, pope, 71n25, 116, 123; Brantôme on, 53n167, 185 Pius V, pope, 160 Plectrude (Frankish queen), 169, 169n85 Plutarch: Lives, 45n145; Moralia (Oeuvres morales), 51n164, 142n4, 144n12, 165n74 poisoning, Catherine’s alleged involvement in, 2, 46, 221–22, 224; and comparison to Brunhilda, 48, 173, 174, 177–78; of François (duc de Bretagne), 152, 173; of FrançoisHercule, 221; of Jeanne d’Albret, 161, 221; of Odet de Coligny, 173, 221; and plans for Charles IX and Henri III, 221–22 Poissy, colloquy of, 21, 29, 155 Poitiers, Diane de, duchesse de Valentinois, 21n79, 84n59, 191n34; DM on, 152–53; polemical

“letters” to Catherine on, 212, 216; Relazioni on, 111–12, 118, 152n37 Poland: Catherine’s letter to Estates of, 93; Henri III as king of, 10, 93–98, 134n57, 221–23, 246, 251 Portugal: Catherine’s claim to, 104n88, 184–85; Catherine’s letter to princess of, 66–67. See also Sebastian I of Portugal princes of the blood, 9, 10, 20; and administration of regency, 72–73, 72n8, 120–21, 121n30, 171n91; and Catherine’s assumption of authority, 9, 14, 72–77, 113–14, 115, 153–55, 179–80, 193–94, 219, 223; Gondi and, 174–75; Relazioni on, 113–17, 120–22, 125–27, 135–36; religious division among, 19–20, 115–17. See also Antoine de Bourbon; Condé, Henri Ier de Bourbon, prince de, and entry following; Henri de Bourbon Proclade (Protadius), lover of Brunhilda, 173–75, 176 Protestantism. See Huguenots; St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres; Wars of Religion Puteo, Giacomo, cardinal, 70, 70n24 “Queen Mother” (Huguenot cannon), 203 Rabelais, François, 19, 37n125 Ravignan, sieur de, 109 regency, concept of, 13–14; and functions of curatelle and tutelle, 10n33, 72n28, 76n36, 76n38, 121n30, 171n91; and maternity, 2–4, 7–10; and women’s rule, 3, 8, 9–11, 13–14. See also Catherine de Médicis, as regent Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors, 36–42; and Catherine’s shaping of ambassadors’ perceptions, 40, 42; and changing portraits of

Index 281 Catherine, 38, 41; and information from recorded conversations, 39–40, 42. See also entry below Relazioni of the Venetian Ambassadors, selections from, 111–39; Barbaro, 124–28; Cappello, 112–13; Cavalli, 111–12; Correro, 128–33; Lippomano, 136–37; Michiel, 113–18, 133–36; Mocenigo, 137–39; Suriano, 118–24. See also individual ambassadors by name René of Anjou, King of Sicily, 192–93 Rennes, bishop of. See Bochetel, Bernardin, bishop of Rennes Le Reveille-matin des francois, et de leurs voisins, selections from, 225–32; authorship of, 225n32; on Catherine’s maternity/upbringing of her children, 231–32 Robertet, Florimond, seigneur d’Alluye, 211 Ronsard, Pierre de, 21, 159 Rouen, 106, 156, 245; siege of, 199–200 Rouhet, Louise de la Béraudière de, 156 Roussel, Gérard, 17 Saint-André, Jacques D’Albon, sieur de, maréchal de France, 122, 126, 127; death of, 174; and “Triumvirate,” 196–97 Saint-Gelais, Mellin de: Sophonisbe, 190 Salic law, 1, 2, 3n6, 11–15, 156, 228; as extended to crown, 13; Suriano on, 118 Saraceni, Giovanni Michele, cardinal, 70, 70n24 Savigny, sieur de, 223–24 Savoie, Emmanuel Philibert, duc de, 204 Schomberg, Gaspard de: Charles IX’s letter to, 91–92 Scorbiac, Guichard de, 103, 105–6 Sebastian I of Portugal, 66n12, 185n15; and Catherine’s claim to Portugal, 104n88, 105, 184–85

“Second Discourse on the Queen, Mother of Our Last Kings, Catherine de Médicis.” See Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeille, Seigneur de: “Discours sur la Reyne, mere de noys roys derniers, Catherine de Médicis” Selim II, sultan of the Ottoman Empire: Catherine’s letter to, 98–99. See also Turks Semblançay, Jacques de Beaune, baron de, 171 Semiramis (Assyrian and Babylonian queen), 193, 245 Serres, Jean de, 43 Sforza, Francesco II, Duke of Milan, 150 Sigisbert, King of Metz (Austrasia), 172 Simmel, Georg, 45n144 smallpox, 65, 66n10, 73 Socrates, 235 Soissons, Charles de Bourbon, comte de, 179n106 Sorlu (Huguenot captain), 196 St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, 24–30; Brantôme on, 198–202; Catherine as blamed for, 24–30, 42–49, 160–69, 198–99; Catherine’s letters following, 90–91, 92; Charles IX and, 25–26, 28, 45–46, 90–92, 164–65, 238–40; Coligny’s murder as inciting, 25–28, 88, 120n25, 154n42, 162–63; DM published following, 42–46; Dubois painting of, 27–28, 58; Gondi as blamed for, 157n50, 168; list of nobles marked for murder in, 162–63, 166; polemical “letter” to Catherine following, 220–24; Reveille-matin on 225–32; royal wedding preceding, 25, 88, 89–90, 160–62, 165; Tocsain on, 233n55, 239–40 Strozzi, Clarice (née de Medici; Catherine’s aunt), 47n148, 123n36, 149–50

282 Index Strozzi, Filippo, 150 Strozzi, Filippo di Piero, 185, 198, 228, 252 Strozzi, Piero, maréchal de France (Catherine’s cousin), 123, 185n16 Suriano, Michele, 38, 39, 118–24; on Catherine and Antoine of Navarre, 121–24; on Catherine as “foreigner,” 122; on Charles IX and regency government, 118–24; on Salic law, 118 “surprise” of Meaux (Huguenot plot), 130, 197–98, 198n56 Téligny, Charles de, 198 Themistocles, 235 Theudebert and Theuderic (Brunhilda’s grandsons), 173–77 Tiberius Gracchus, 235–36 Le Tocsain, contre les massacreurs et auteurs des confusions en France, selections from, 233–40; on Catherine’s Florentine origins, 234, 235; on Catherine’s maternity/upbringing of her sons, 234–40 The Tocsin, against the Slaughterers and Perpetrators of Confusion in France. See entry above Tournon, François de, cardinal, 122–23, 126, 127, 150, 195 Treaty of Troyes, 170n89 Trissino, Gian Giorgio, Sophonisba: Saint-Gelais translation of, 190 Tronchet, Etienne de, 33 Tuileries (Paris), 15 Turenne, Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne, vicomte de, 101, 104, 105 Turks, 166, 184; Charles V’s defeat of, 181; François Ier’s alliance with, 98n80; papal opposition to, 146, 147 tutelle (guardianship function of regency), 10n33, 72n28, 76n38, 121n30, 171n91

Vendôme, Charles de Bourbon, duc de, 179n106 Vendôme, François de, vidame de Chartres, 116 Vermigli, Peter (Peter Martyr), 155 Versailles, 163, 163n68 Victoire de Valois (Catherine’s daughter), 217 Villefrancon, Guillaume de Saulx, sieur de: Catherine’s letter to, 68–69 Visconti, Valentina, duchesse d’Orléans, 192 Wars of Religion, 15–30; Beaune on, 246–47; Catherine’s efforts at mediation in, 20–24; and Catherine’s notoriety, 15–16, 24–30, 42–49; first war of, 16–17, 22–23, 33, 86, 157, 202; as memorialized by Perrissin and Tortorel, 18n69, 22n83; violence of, 22–30. See also Catherine de Médicis, as mediator between Catholics and Huguenots; St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres Wassy, massacre at, 22–23, 24–25; Catherine’s letters to Condé following, 33, 86–88, 197n53 women, at French court: Brantôme on, 188–90, 200, 202, 205–6; Catherine’s prevention of duel over, 201; and involvement in liaisons, 152–53, 156, 158, 212, 216, 237. See also Poitiers, Diane de women, lives of: ancient/Renaissance examples of, 51n161, 51n164, 52–53, 143, 181; Brantôme’s Recueil des Dames on, 49–51, 208n91; DM and other works as polemical versions of, 43–44, 51–53, 55, 182. See also Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeille, Seigneur de, “Discours sur la Reyne” women’s rule, in early modern France, 2–3, 11–15, 47–49; polemical literature on, 47–49, 169–80; as

Index 283 regents, 3, 8, 9–11, 13–14; and Salic law, 1, 2, 3n6, 11–15, 118, 156, 228. See also Catherine de Médicis, and entries following; regency, concept of; specific queens and rulers by name Zenobia, 236