The Moderates at Bay, 1555-1559

When Henri II requested the court's "advice" on the best means of punishing and stamping out heresy in 1555, the moderates had the opening they had been waiting for. Président Séguier and conseiller Du Drac spoke out against a proposed new edict (as unnecessary) and specifically opposed the introduction of an Inquisition. In their opinion, "the record of the medieval Inquisition did not inspire confidence . . . [it was] marked by savage brutality and gross errors in judgment." If new men were appointed to such a court, they would lack the necessary knowledge and experience of the law, and if new men were not to be appointed, why was it necessary to create a new court?

Special courts in any case weakened justice by reducing the jurisdiction and the prestige of the existing courts. Royal justice, vested in Parlement, was the main protection of Frenchmen, and kings should not abandon it in favor of "innovations." More attention should be given to prevention of

[1] . Denis Richer, "Aspects socio-culturels des conflits religieux à Paris dans la seconde moitié du XVIe siècle," Annales—Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 32 (1 977): 769, 765, 770; see also Maugis, Parlement de Paris , 2:13-23, for many details on Parlement's hostility to the Reformation, with full archival references in notes.

heresy and less to punishment, following the example of the primitive church, which, far from taking the sword, resisted persecution by the purity of Christian lives. "By these means the word of God was spread . . . and the church was able to persevere in bad times as well as in good. The wise Emperor Justinian forbade the clergy to come to court, under pain of suspension from their offices. . . . The residence requirement should be revived in France." Alluding to one more danger of an Inquisition—denunciation by one's personal enemies under the cover of religion—président Séguier reemphasized the main point: "Parlement's deputies advise the king that the best way to put an end to heresies would be to imitate the state of the primitive church, that is, through good examples set by ecclesiastics, rather than by fire and sword."^[2]

The moderates may have been emboldened to speak up at this time (October 1555) by episodes in which individuals had taken the law into their own hands, exceeding even the harsh measures permitted by royal policy. Only a few days earlier one Jean de Thérouenne, described as exalté , had harassed, without authorization, the bailli of Orléans, Jean Groslot, "for negligence in pursuing persons suspected of heresy" and caused him to be imprisoned, "usurping power reserved to the Grand' Chambre by royal command."^[3]

In April 1556 the court refused to knuckle under to pressure from the cardinal de Lorraine. Procureur général Brulart reported that the cardinal was displeased to learn that certain prisoners pour le faict de la religion had continued in their errors after being released, plus refractoires qu'au-paravant , and wished the court to require proof of real repentance in future cases. The court replied that each case would continue to be decided on its merits, while agreeing that released prisoners should report to diocesan authorities.^[4]

In 1556 and 1557 the court was repeatedly accused of foot-dragging in the pursuit of heresy by spokesmen for the crown, sometimes by the king himself. On June 12, 1556, Henri II told a parlementaire delegation that the court "had proceeded so coldly against heretics for the past three years" that he was considering removing the matter from their jurisdiction. A year later, the gens du roi presented letters patent commanding the court—

[2] . AN x^1a 1581, fols. 308-312 on Séguier and Du Drac, October 1555.

[3] . Ibid., fol. 284v on Thérouenne; and Christopher W. Stocker, "The Calvinist Officers of Orléans, 1560-1572," Proceedings of the Western Society for French History 6 (1979): 21-23.

[4] . AN x^1a 1581, fols. 308-309, for April 3 and June 12, 1556; AN x^1a 1584, fol. 340, June 12, 1557.

again—to register an edict seizing the goods of religious fugitives who had fled the kingdom. The accusation of deliberate malingering stung the parlementaires, and Séguier retorted that no more than eleven or twelve sessions had been involved, and "when the two hours reserved for current cases each day were subtracted, only about fifteen minutes were left for each [member] to declare his conscience." On the last day of 1557, the gens du roi complained again that the court had still not deliberated the king's latest edict (Compiègne), "presented four months ago." They understated the case: the edict had been presented on July 24, 1557, and was registered in January 1558.^[5]

Fabian tactics were routine in parlementaire resistance. In this case it is easy to understand because the Edict of Compiègne was Draconian. It enforced the death penalty, without appeal, for all sacramentaires (those who denied the Real Presence), all who preached heresy, even in private, all who offended against the sacraments, images, the Virgin, or the saints, engaged in unlawful assembly or other sedition, who communicated with Geneva, or who possessed or traded in condemned books. In addition to summing up all previous edicts, it stated that violations sont autant à chastier par armes que par voye de justice , which Sutherland interprets as no less than "a declaration of war by the king against his Protestant subjects."^[6]

Simultaneously letters patent establishing "three inquisitors of the faith in our kingdom" had been sent to Parlement. (This royal decree confirmed a papal brief of April 1556. The Edict of Compiègne can be considered a companion declaration for the secular arm.) Conditions were attached to this unpopular measure by which the king hoped to soften the opposition and limit the inquisitors' power: only reliable churchmen were to be employed, cooperation with the local bishop was required, and at least six of the ten bons et notables personnages on the tribunals were to be conseillers in Parlement. Moreover, all final decisions lay with royal officials. The inquisitors chosen reflect the same caution and desire to defuse hostility. They also represent a balance of the noble factions at court: Odet, cardinal de Châtillon, a nephew of Montmorency and a liberal Erasmian;^[7] Charles, cardinal de Lorraine, leader of the Guise party; with Charles, cardinal de

[5] . AN x^1a 1586, for December 3, 1557.

[6] . Sutherland, Huguenot Struggle , 344-345 on Edict of Compiègne; my italics.

[7] . Odet de Coligny, cardinal de Châtillon (1517-71), has usually been treated as a Huguenot because he served the cause in the Third Civil War as its chief diplomat (in addition to the adherence of his two brothers), but the latest study shows that he was a liberal religious reformer, rather than a Calvinist (Lawrence S. Metzger, "The Protestant Cardinal, Odet de Coligny, 1517-1571" [Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1979]).

Bourbon, ineffectual but of royal blood, in the middle. Although the letters patent were registered by Parlement in January 1558, they remained a dead letter and were allowed to lapse in six months. No Inquisition of the Roman type ever functioned in France, although many measures of French courts were substantively similar, and some Sorbonne theologians had borne the title "inquisitor of the faith" since the reign of François I.^[8]

Events of major importance occurred in the months between this attempt to set up an inquisition, in July 1557, and its abandonment the following year. In August the French armies suffered a drastic defeat by the Spaniards at St-Quentin. In addition to the constable, his nephew Gaspard de Coligny was taken prisoner. Anxiety to obtain Montmorency's release was a principal factor in Henri II's willingness to sue for peace, while the admiral's confinement was probably the turning point of his life, laying the groundwork for his conversion to the Protestant cause, which he would lead for the last ten years of his life.^[9] This was, of course, unknown at the time, but other events kept the menace of heresy in the forefront of Parisian public opinion.

Shortly after St-Quentin, on September 5, 1557, a clandestine Protestant service in a private house in the rue St-Jacques was invaded by the authorities. The congregation included many nobles, and while the men fought their way out, 22 of the 132 persons arrested were described as "dames et demoiselles de grandes maisons." The affaire de la rue St-Jacques created a scandal, confirming the fears of those who had only suspected the extent of the movement in those circles. Two of the noblewomen were members of Catherine de Médicis's entourage, and she subsequently took others under her protection. Important persons in the Germanies and Switzerland tried to intercede with the French king on behalf of the prisoners—in vain. The episode is a striking instance of the points made by Richer about the Huguenots of these years.^[10]

The most flagrant manifestations of Huguenot triomphalisme were yet to come, in the spring of 1558, when Protestants assembled openly in the

[8] . Sutherland, Huguenot Struggle , 54-55; Sutherland, "An Inquisition in France?," 363-369.

[9] . Shimizu's Conflict of Loyalties , the most recent biography of Admiral Cologny, has very complete references to the sources.

[10] . On the affaire de la rue St-Jacques see Sutherland, Huguenot Struggle , 64; Nancy L. Roelker, "The Role of Noblewomen in the French Reformation," Archive for Reformation History (1972): 168-195. See also Taber, "Religious Dissent," ch. 1. Canon Brulart confirms Richet's thesis when he refers to Huguenots making a point of being fashionably (and expensively) dressed when they knew members of the royal court would see them.

Pré-aux-Clercs (quartier St-Germain) to hold services à la mode de Genève , in the contemporary phrase. The presence of François d'Andelot, youngest of the Châtillons, and on occasion that of Antoine de Bourbon, king of Navarre and first prince of the blood, seemed to protect the gatherings, so that the laws against "illicit assemblies" were not enforced, which encouraged others to join. On May 17 the bishop of Paris complained that in the streets surrounding the Pré-aux-Clercs "great crowds were chanting the Psalms of David in French."^[11] As with any novelty, many were curiosity seekers rather than serious converts, and university neighborhoods are always volatile, but the increased numbers raised the visibility of Parisian heretics.^[12]

Some came to taunt and heckle; fights frequently broke out and the neighborhood became notorious for its "disorders." A considerable share of the responsibility for the endemic violence should probably be attributed to the ever more inflammatory sermons, which the bishop tried to control, but with no noticeable effect.^[13] The king expected the Parlement to control the situation and sent word (May 23) that he wished to get to the bottom of the disturbances: "Those who know anything and do not reveal it will be punished by death, as seditious [persons]." Henri II was quoted as saying that if his own son did not share his religion, he would treat him as an enemy. Parlement's position, already difficult, grew increasingly hazardous, caught between royal pressure to punish lawbreakers and confidence of the latter that their high sponsorship would shield them.^[14] Parlementaires heard threats from outraged Catholics in the streets and felt reluctance to move against persons they respected—colleagues, friends, and relatives with whose views they often sympathized and sometimes shared. Judges who tried to implement royal policy were jostled and insulted in the streets; a frequent epithet was Fauteur d'hérésie! The king's Catholic advisers were urging that judges who failed to apply the heresy laws—and especially those who were personally guilty of violating them—should be stripped of

[11] . Clément Marot (1495-1544) translated the Psalms into French, an important contribution to the Protestant movement, and had written many poèmes d'occasion for his patroness, Marguerite de Navarre, before becoming a Calvinist.

[12] . AN x^1a 1588, for May 12, 1558.

[13] . AN x^1a 1584, fols. 282, 294, April 9, 13, 1558; ibid., 1585, fols. 353, 404v, April 29, May 14, 1558.

[14] . This illusion shattered when D'Andelot was arrested, imprisoned, and coerced into a retraction to make an example of him (May-July 1558), but he remained a leader in the Calvinist movement in the first two civil wars, until his death in 1569. See Nancy L. Roelker, "Family, Faith, and Fortune; the Châtillon Brothers in the French Reformation," in Leaders of the Reformation , ed. R. De Molen (London, 1984).

their offices. Attempting to pass the buck, the court deplored the dereliction in their duty of the municipal and university authorities. On June 2 the king lost patience and sent orders to the court "to act at once and severely," making Antoine Fumée and Bartholomé Faye responsible for carrying them out.^[15]

However severe the pressures from outside, the Parlement's own crisis was caused by an inner explosion. Conflicts between the moderates and the ultras over religious policy fragmented the court. The moderates, led by présidents Séguier and Harlay, prevailed in the Tournelle and thus routinely heard heresy cases appealed from lower courts, while the ultras, led by premier président Le Maistre, dominated the Grand' Chambre. The case that set off the explosion, in March 1559, involved three prisoners who were appealing a death sentence. The Tournelle judges had failed to persuade the accused to recant and were under attack for delaying sentence. They then made a move, at great risk to themselves, which could only mean that they were unwilling to apply the royal edicts and were seeking a further means to avoid doing so. Entering into discussion with the accused, they apparently offered acquittal on condition of attendance at mass, and when the prisoners refused, they permitted them to give explanations of their reasons in writing. The source that gives the fullest detail on the episode is the Histoire ecclésiastique that speaks for the Calvinist leadership (formerly attributed to Théodore de Bèze himself). We cannot therefore be sure that the explanations of the accused were so convincing that "some of the judges were obliged to admit out loud that in truth the Mass contained abuses," but there is no disputing the fact that the Tournelle converted the death sentence of a lower court to banishment, even as the Grand' Chambre was handing down another death sentence in a comparable case.^[16]

Such a situation could not be tolerated. The gens du roi convoked a special mercuriale to "restore discipline" and heal the breach. The king's intention was clearly to bring the erring moderates into line. We recall that all those close to him favored the ultra position and that their reaction to Huguenot triomphalisme had gone from indignation to fright and fury in recent months.

[15] . AN x^1a 1588, 1590, fols. 8v, 30v, 35v, 56v, 65; Bibliothèque Nationale, fonds Dupuy (hereafter, BN Dupuy) 132, fols. 58, 60, 62; Taber, "Religious Dissent," 42-49; Jean Calvin, Opera quae supersunt omnia , vol. 17, cols. 134-135, Macar to Calvin, May 1558.

[16] . Taber, "Religious Dissent," 42-44 and notes. We owe insight into this first open split in parlementaire opinion to the Huguenot sources, Jean Crespin, Bèze, and the authors of the Histoire ecclésiastique who were, of course, anxious to exploit it.