Edict of Beaulieu, 5 May 1576

Edict of Beaulieu, 5 May 1576

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Edict of Beaulieu, 5 May 1576

The Edict of Beaulieu (5 May 1576) ended the Fifth War of Religion and gave the Huguenots more religious rights than any of the treaties that had ended the first four wars.

By the start of 1576 the Huguenots had managed to unite most of their various armies in the vicinity of Paris. The force of around 30,000 men was commanded by King Henry III's brother Alençon, and included a large contingent from Germany under Duke Casimir and the Prince of Condé. The presence of this large hostile army near to the court helped convince Henry III and Catherine de Medici to begin serious peace negotiations, and after some strenuous negotiations the eventual terms were agreed. Most of the Huguenot's demands were met - the only major exceptions being a claim on part of the tithes paid to the Catholic Church and a demand that Casimir become Royal Governor of Metz, Toul and Verdun.

Under the terms of the Edict of Beaulieu the Huguenots were given freedom of worship throughout France. The only exceptions were Paris, the Royal court and the lands of any nobleman who objected. Henry III agreed to set up joint courts with equal members of Catholics and Protestants to try any cases involving the Huguenots, a move that also meant that Huguenots had to be allowed to become judges. Admiral Coligny, who had been murdered during the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, was given a posthumous pardon. All of the actions of the Huguenot leaders were given official approval. Condé was made governor of Picardy, Casimir was given a large subsidy while Alençon was given Berry, Tourtaine, Anjou and an annual revenue of 100,000 gold crowns. The treaty was widely known as the Peace of Monsieur, this being the standard term used to address Royal Princes. The Huguenots were granted eight security towns in Languedoc, Guyenne, Dauphiné and Provence and finally the Estates General were to be called within six months.

The peace would be very short-lived. Many Catholics were appalled by the terms of the treaty, include ing Henry of Guise, who soon became the leader of the Catholic opposition, a move that would eventually turn the two-sided wars into three-sided ones. In the short term the peace didn't survive the year, and the Sixth War of Religion broke out towards the end of 1576.

François, duc d'Anjou

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

François, duc d’Anjou, in full Hercule-François, duc d’Anjou, also called (1566–76) duc d’Alençon, (born March 18, 1554, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France—died June 10, 1584, Château-Thierry), fourth and youngest son of Henry II of France and Catherine de Médicis his three brothers—Francis II, Charles IX, and Henry III—were kings of France. But for his early death at age 30, he too would have been king.

Catherine de Médicis gave him Alençon in 1566, and he bore the title of duc d’Alençon until 1576. Small and swarthy, ambitious and devious, but a leader of the moderate Roman Catholic faction called the Politiques, he secured in the general Treaty of Beaulieu (May 6, 1576) a group of territories that made him duc d’Anjou. He also courted Elizabeth I of England and even succeeded in negotiating with her a marriage contract (1579), which, however, was never concluded, even after two wooing visits to London (1579, 1581–82). Seeking also to exploit the unsettled conditions in the Netherlands during the Dutch revolt against Spanish rule, he had himself proclaimed duke of Brabant and count of Flanders (1581), but the titles remained fictitious.

Anjou’s death in 1584, during the reign of the childless Henry III, made his distant cousin the Protestant Henry of Bourbon-Navarre (the future Henry IV) heir presumptive to the crown of France.

Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day, massacre of French Huguenots (Protestants) in Paris on August 24/25, 1572, plotted by Catherine de’ Medici and carried out by Roman Catholic nobles and other citizens. It was one event in the series of civil wars between Roman Catholics and Huguenots that beset France in the late 16th century.

The Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day had for its background the political and religious rivalries of the court of France. Admiral Gaspard II de Coligny, a Huguenot leader, supported a war in the Low Countries against Spain as a means to prevent a resumption of civil war, a plan that the French king, Charles IX, was coming to approve in the summer of 1572. Catherine de’ Medici, the mother of Charles, feared Admiral Coligny’s growing influence over her son. She accordingly gave her approval to a plot that the Roman Catholic house of Guise had been hatching to assassinate Coligny, whom it held responsible for the murder of François de Guise in 1563.

On August 18, 1572, Catherine’s daughter, Margaret of France (Marguerite de Valois), was married to the Huguenot Henry of Navarre (the future Henry IV of France), and a large part of the Huguenot nobility came to Paris for the wedding. The attempt on Admiral Coligny’s life four days later failed he was only wounded. To placate the angry Huguenots, the government agreed to investigate the assassination attempt. Fearing discovery of her complicity, Catherine met secretly with a group of nobles at the Tuileries Palace to plot the complete extermination of the Huguenot leaders, who were still in Paris for the wedding festivities. Charles was persuaded to approve of the scheme, and, on the night of August 23, members of the Paris municipality were called to the Louvre and given their orders.

Shortly before dawn on August 24 the bell of Saint-Germain-l’Auxerrois began to toll and the massacre began. One of the first victims was Coligny, who was killed under the supervision of Henry de Guise himself. Even within the Louvre, Navarre’s attendants were slaughtered, though Navarre and Henry I de Bourbon, 2nd prince de Condé, were spared. The homes and shops of Huguenots were pillaged and their occupants brutally murdered many bodies were thrown into the Seine. Bloodshed continued in Paris even after a royal order of August 25 to stop the killing, and it spread to the provinces. Huguenots in Rouen, Lyon, Bourges, Orléans, and Bordeaux were among the victims. Estimates of the number that perished in the disturbances, which lasted to the beginning of October, have varied from 2,000 by a Roman Catholic apologist to 70,000 by the contemporary Huguenot Maximilien de Béthune, duc de Sully, who himself barely escaped death. Modern writers put the number at 3,000 in Paris alone.

The news of the massacre was welcomed by Philip II of Spain, and Pope Gregory XIII had a medal struck to celebrate the event. Protestant nations were horrified. To explain the massacre, Charles, assuming responsibility for it, claimed that there had been a Huguenot plot against the crown.

Instead of crippling the Huguenot party as Catherine had hoped it would do, the massacre revived hatred between Roman Catholics and Huguenots and helped provoke a renewal of hostilities. Thenceforth the Huguenots abandoned John Calvin’s principle of obedience to the civil magistrate—that is, to the royal authority—and adopted the view that rebellion and tyrannicide were justifiable under certain circumstances.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica This article was most recently revised and updated by Michael Ray, Editor.

Aftermath [ edit | edit source ]

Pope Sixtus V sealed the Treaty of Nemours by excommunicating the King of Navarre and his cousin, the Prince of Condé. Ζ] He based his excommunication on the grounds that the throne of Navarre was vested in Saint Peter, his successors, and the eternal power of God. As a result, the Papal Bull stripped the King of Navarre of his titles, and denied him and his cousin the right to succeed the French throne. The Papal Bull invalidated all allegiances sworn to the King of Navarre by his vassals. The Treaty of Nemours, and the events that ensued, were responsible for the advent of the War of the Three Henrys, the final phase of the French Wars of Religion. [ citation needed ]

The league of 1585

The death of the Duke of Anjou (10 June, 1584) having made Henry of Bourbon, the Protestant King of Navarre, heir presumptive to Henry III, a new league was formed among the aristocracy and the people. On the one hand, the Dukes of Guise, Mayenne, and Nevers and Baron de Senecey met at Nancy to renew the League, with the object of securing the recognition, as heir to the throne, of the Cardinal de Bourbon, who would extirpate heresy and receive the Council of Trent in France. Philip II, by the Treaty of Joinville (31 December, 1584), promised his concurrence, in the shape of a monthly subsidy of 50,000 crowns. At Paris, on the other hand, Charles Hotteman, Sieur de Rocheblond, "moved by the Spirit of God", Prévost, curé of Saint Séverin, Boucher, curé of Saint Benoît, and Launoy, a canon of Soissons, appealed to the middle classes of the cities to save Catholicism. A secret society was formed. Rocheblond and five other leaguers carried on a propaganda, gradually organizing a little army at Paris, and establishing relations with the Guises. The combination of these two movements &mdash the aristocratic and the popular &mdash resulted in the manifesto of 30 March, 1585, launched from Péronne by Guise and the princes amounting to a sort of declaration of war against Henry III. The whole story of the League has been told in the article G UISE . We shall here dwell upon only the following two points.

Relations between the popes and the League

Gregory XIII approved of the League after 1584, but abstained from committing himself to any writing in its favour. Sixtus V wished the struggle against heresy in France to be led by the king himself the religious zeal of the Leaguers pleased him, but he did not like the movement of political independence in relation to Henry III. Events, however, drove Sixtus V to take sides with the Leaguers. The Bull of 9 September, 1585, by which he declared Henry of Bourbon and the Prince of Condé as Protestants, to have forfeited the succession, provoked so much opposition from the Parliament, and so spirited a reply from Henry, that the League, in its turn, recognized the necessity of a counterstroke. Louis d'Orléans, advocate and a leaguer, undertook the defence of the Bull in the "Avertissement des Catholiques Angais aux Français Catholiques", an extremely violent manifesto against Henry of Bourbon. Madame le Montpensier, a sister of the Guises, boasted that she ruled the famous preachers of the League, the "Satire Ménippée" presently turned them to ridicule, while in their turn the Leaguers from the pulpits of Paris attacked not only Henry of Bourbon, but the acts, the morals, and the orthodoxy of Henry III. Such preachers were Rose, Bishop of Senlis, Boucher and Prévost, the aforesaid curés &mdash the latter of whom caused an immense picture to be displayed, representing the horrible sufferings inflicted upon Catholics by the English co-religionists of Henry of Bourbon. Other preachers were de Launay, a canon of Soissons, the learned Benedictine Génébrard, the controversialist Feuardent, the ascetic writer Pierre Crespet, and Guincestre, curé of Saint-Gervais, who, preaching at Saint-Barthélemy on New Year's Day, 1589, made all who heard him take an oath to spend the last penny they had and shed their last drop of blood to avenge their assassination of Guise. By these excesses of the Leaguers against the monarchical principle, and by the murder of Henry III by Jacques Clément (1 August, 1589) Sixtus V was compelled to assume an altitude of extreme reserve towards the League. The nuncio Matteuzzi having thought it his duty to leave Venice because immediately after the assassination of Henry III the Senate had decided to send an ambassador to Henry of Bourbon, the pope sent him back to his post, expressing a hope that the Venetians might be able to persuade Henry of Bourbon to be reconciled with the Holy See. On 14 May, 1590, the papal legate Caetani blessed, saluting them as Machabees, the 1300 monks who, led by Rose, Bishop of Senlis, and Pelletier, Curé of Saint-Jacques, organized for the defence of Paris against Henry of Bourbon but, on the other hand, the pope manifested great displeasure because the Sorbonne had declared, on 7 May, that, even "absolved of his crimes", Henry of Bourbon could not become King of France. The Leaguers in their enthusiasm had denied to the papal authority the right of eventually admitting Henry of Bourbon to the throne of France. They found new cause for indignation in the fact that Sixtus V had received the Duke of Luxembourg-Piney, the envoy of Henry's party and Philip II while in Paris, caused a sermon to be preached against the pope.

But when, after the brief pontificate of Urban VII, Gregory XIV became pope (5 December, 1590) the League and Spain recovered their influence at Rome. Several Briefs dated in March, 1591, and two "monitoria" to the nuncio Landriano once more proclaimed the downfall of Henry of Bourbon. The prelates who sided with Henry, assembled at Chartres, in September, 1591, protested against the "monitoria" and appealed from them to the pope's maturer information. The gradual development of a third party weakened the League and hastened the approach of an understanding between Rome and Henry of Bourbon (see HENRY IV). Briefly, the Holy See felt a natural sympathy for the Catholic convictions in which the League originated but, to the honour of Sixtus V, he would not, in the most tragic moments of his pontificate, compromise himself too far with a movement which flouted the authority of Henry III, the legitimate king neither would he admit the maxim: "Culpam non pænam aufert absolutio peccati" (Absolution blots out the sin, but not its penalty), in virtue of which certain theologians of the League claimed that Henry IV, even if absolved by the pope, would still be incapable of succeeding to the French throne. By this wise policy, Sixtus prepared the way far in advance for the reconciliation which he hoped for, and which was to be realized in the absolution of Henry IV by Clement VIII.

Political doctrines of the League

Charles Labitte has found it possible to write a book on "La Démocratie sous la Ligue". The religious rising of the people soon took shelter behind certain political theories which tended to the revival of medieval political liberties and the limitation of royal absolutism. In 1586 the advocate Le Breton, in a pamphlet for which he was hanged, called Henry III "one of the greatest hypocrites who ever lived", demanded an assembly of the States General from which the royal officers should be excluded, and proposed to restore all their franchises to the cities. Ideas of political autonomy were beginning to take definite shape. The League wished the clergy to recover those liberties which it possessed before the Concordat of Francis I, the nobility to regain the independence it enjoyed in the Middle Ages, and the cities to be restored to a certain degree of autonomy. After the assassination of Guise, a crime instigated by Henry III, sixty-six doctors of the Sorbonne declared that the king's subjects were freed from their oath of allegiance and might lawfully take arms, collect money, and defend the Roman religion against the king: the name of Henrv III was erased from the Canon of the Mass and replaced by the "Catholic princes". Boucher, curé of Saint-Benoît, popularized this opinion of the Sorbonne in his book "De justa Henriei Tertii abdicatione", in which be maintained that Henry III, "as a perjurer, assassin, murderer, a sacrilegious person, patron of heresy, simoniac, magician, impious and damnable", could be deposed by the Church that, as "a perfidious waster of the public treasure, a tyrant and enemy of his country", he could be deposed by the people. Boucher declared that a tyrant was a ferocious beast which men were justified at killing. It was under the influence of these theories that upon the assassination of Henry III by Jacques Clément (1 August, 1589), the mother of the Guises harangued the throng from the altar of the church of the Cordeliers, and glorified the deed of Clément. These exaggerated ideas served only to justify tyranny, and did not long influence the minds of men. Moreover, the "Declaration" of Henry IV against seditious preachers (September, 1595) and the steps taken at Rome by Cardinal d'Ossat, in 1601, put a stop to the political preachings which the League had brought into fashion. The memory of the excesses committed under the League was afterwards exploited by the legists of the French Crown to combat Roman doctrines and to defend royal absolutism and Gallicanism. But, considering the bases of the League doctrines, it is impossible not to accord them the highest importance in the history of political ideas. Power, they said, was derived from God through the people, and they opposed the false, absolutist, and Gallican doctrine of the Divine right and irresponsibility of kings, such as Louis XIV professed and practised and they also bore witness to the perfect compatibility of the most rigorous Roman ideas with democratic and popular aspirations.

People who were born in the year 1576, will celebrate or have already celebrated their 445 birthday this year (2021).

. of famous people, actors, celebrities and stars born in 1576

Adam Willaerts

Painter from the Northern Netherlands (1577-1664)

*November 30th, 1576, London April 4th, 1664, Utrecht

Antonio Neri

*February 29th, 1576, Florence January 1st, 1614, Florence

6. Justice for Bodin: Open and Closed Questions

Biographies have attributed religious, political, and philosophical doctrines to Bodin that he may have held. These historians have even used the word &ldquoconversion&rdquo&mdasha strong word in the sixteenth century&mdashto make their point. Rose writes of Bodin&rsquos &ldquoconversion to Judaism&rdquo Moreau-Reibel and Rose of his &ldquoconversion to the League,&rdquo which according to Rose is an &ldquoact of apostasy&rdquo too. Bayle, Naef and Bouchez describe his &ldquoconversion to Protestantism,&rdquo and Franklin of his &ldquoconversion to absolutism.&rdquo Likewise Bayle and Quaglioni describe Bodin&rsquos tendency towards religious dissimulation or nicodemism. Within the confines of a biography, we are limited to address only the most important aspects of Bodin&rsquos character as a political actor including his adhesion to the League and his abandonment of the &ldquopolitiques.&rdquo Concerning the first point, his adhesion to the League, we have examined the Bodin&rsquos position based on his own writings. The second point, Bodin&rsquos relationship to the &ldquopolitiques,&rdquo is based on suppositions which have become nearly a tradition in Bodin scholarship, and has been perpetuated and reinforced by generation after generation of historians. Unfortunately these historians have not sought sources on which to base this claim. In fact, there are no sources that support this argument. Indeed, Bodin never said that he was a &ldquopolitique.&rdquo Briefly addressing the heart of the matter, historians have sought to make Bodin a convinced partisan of religious tolerance. During Bodin&rsquos lifetime however, religious tolerance, defined as civil tolerance and a legal admission of confessional diversity within a country or city, was not the ideal it would later become after the eighteenth century. In the sixteenth century, it was men like Sébastian Castellion who extolled the co-existence of many religions, with which the reformed camp disagreed. The struggle of the Huguenots from the beginning of the civil wars, was to convert the king and realm to the true religion. Tolerance was not an ideal since one cannot tolerate what one cannot possibly accept. For example how could one allow Christ to coexist with Belial, or a false religion to coexist with the one and only true religion? No further proof of this conviction is needed than the fierce struggle both Calvin and Beza waged against Castellion. This example causes one to ask the question: if Castellion supported freedom of religion, why did the leaders of the Reformation, who professed the same desire, denounce him so fervently? Because, in the reality, the French Reformers did not want freedom of religion which could have &ldquoopened the door to all manner of sects and heresies,&rdquo as Calvin said. At the beginning of the wars of religion, they wanted to obtain the recognition of the reformed religion as the sole religion in the realm. Yet, after thirty-six years of war, and after the conversion of Henry of Navarre, they understood that their project was too ambitious and had to be limited. Only through true religious tolerance could they convert the remainder of the kingdom at a later time. The unity of faith, and Calvinist religious concord were the ideal of Reformers too. Concerning the &ldquopolitiques,&rdquo we only have descriptions of them from their adversaries who considered them atheists and heathens. For instance they were accused of having no religion because they were inclined to admit the definitive coexistence of different forms of worship in the interest of civil peace. Nevertheless, why have modern historians, placed men, who they considered the &ldquomost liberal and sympathetic,&rdquo such as Bodin, Etienne Pasquier, Duplessis-Mornay, Pierre de Beloy and many others in the party of the &ldquopolitiques.&rdquo These historians have projected their modern ideals of tolerance, religious freedom, pluralism, and diversity on to the period of the Wars of Religion. Thus these scholars believed they had done a great service to the men of the past by presenting them as forerunners of the later values. But, as we have seen, Bodin viewed confessional concord as the means capable of returning religious, civil and political unity to the kingdom. It should be recalled however that the problem was not that of &ldquoliberty of conscience,&rdquo which the French government had already guaranteed by edicts in 1563, but the liberty to worship. The freedom to worship is also at the heart of the question of tolerance. When Bodin and many of his contemporaries thought about tolerance, it was only as provisional tolerance with the hope of achieving civil peace and religious reunification in the future. For Bodin, concord was essential since it formed the foundation of sovereignty and was necessary for the full exercise of power.

To be fair to Bodin, the offenses poured out against him by his malicious contemporaries at the time of his adhesion to the League should be analyzed and understood historically. The same goes for the accusations of treason, turn-coating, trickery, opportunism, &ldquothe charge of his reversal of his belief on religious tolerance,&rdquo &ldquohis slipperiness and lack of principle in joining the League,&rdquo all of which we find today in his biographies. Bodin&rsquos program of concord and unity was in opposition to permanent tolerance and established diversity in juridical, political, and theological questions, as we already seen.

6.1 Particular Questions

(1) A Judaising Catholic. Did Bodin&rsquos passion for studying Judaic texts arise principally from the influence of his Jewish mother? The trail is a false one since his mother was not Jewish. (2) Another false trail concerns how he had miraculously escaped the St. Bartholomew massacre in Paris by seeking refuge with Christophle de Thou, the president of the Parlement of Paris &mdash the story being &ldquolate and unverifiable&rdquoaccording to Jacquelin Boucher (1983). Paul Collinet, who maintained initially that Bodin was not in Paris but in the county of Rethelois at the time (Collinet 1908, 752), later revised his ideas: he had confused J. Bodin de Saint-Amand (our J. Bodin) with another, J. B. de Montguichet (Collinet 1910). This was in accordance with the study of Paul Cornu (Cornu 1907) about &ldquotwo J. Bodins&rdquo. Nevertheless, Cornu himself cannot say where our Bodin was at that time. [15] In fact, we know nothing for certain about Bodin on the famous night of August 24, 1572, nor is it not a matter of central historical importance. (3) Belief in Witchcraft. Bodin, like the majority of people in the sixteenth century, believed in the devil and the power of Satan. These beliefs made his biographers, especially those of the nineteenth century, uneasy. They felt that such superstitions tarnished Bodin&rsquos image. Baudrillart criticized Bodin&rsquos work Demonomanie and wrote that &ldquoAbsurd fanaticism, ridiculous and obnoxious should be written in the margins of each page of this unfortunate book&rdquo (Baudrillart 1853, 184, 188&ndash189). Such vain preoccupations and a lack historical sense are two faults, among others, that distort the historical analysis of Bodin by those who wish to make him a man of their time rather than allowing him to be a man of his day.

6.2 Open Questions

Some recent studies of the Heptaplomeres have tended to cast some doubt on Bodin&rsquos authorship of this work. Even if the issue of his authorship has not been decisively resolved, one of the secondary but beneficial consequences of these studies is that they have increased our understanding of the on sources which the author of this anonymous text drew &mdash including not only the Daemonomania as well as the other works by Bodin, but also the writings of Johan Wier (1515&ndash1588 Wier 1579). The most important studies questioninig Bodin&rsquos authorship of the treatise are those by Karl F. Faltenbacher (2002, 2009) and David Wootton (2002), Jean Céard (2009) and Isabelle Pantin (2009). Refutations of this thesis, on the other hand, have been published by Jean Letrouit (1995), Andrea Suggi (2005, 2006, 2007) and Noel Malcom (2006).

6.3 Closed questions

Sometimes historical research progresses by leaps and bounds instead of a gradual and steady evolution. Thanks to new research (Fontana 2009) we are now in a position to settle on certain issues in Bodin&rsquos life that have remained matters of conjecture until quite recently, such as his supposed visit to Geneva in 1552 (on which, see below). Biographers have been faced with a series of problems because, throughout his life, he was regularly confused with other individuals also called Jean Bodin, not least within his own family: he was the fourth of seven children, the second of whome was also called Jean (Levron 1950, 14). For this reason, he has often been assigned roles by historians which he may not have played. He has been conflated, for instance, with a certain Jean Bodin arrested in two trials for heresy in Paris, one in 1547 and the other in 1548 (Weiss 1889, 17&ndash8 Naef Droz but see Levron 1948). He has also been confused with Jean Bodin de La Bodinière or Montguichet who, like our Jean Bodin, was an Angevin and a commissioner for the reformation of forests in Normandy, as well as a member of the household of the duke d&rsquoAlençon (cf. Chauviré, 33&ndash4 Cornu 1907, 109&ndash111 Holt 1986, 41). Among the avocats of the Parlement of Paris who swore an oath to uphold Catholism in 1562, there were two Jean Bodins, one of whom was ours (Delachenal 1885, 405&ndash6). Someone called Jean Bodin was arrested at the priory of Saint-Denis-de-la-Chatre, rue Saint-Barthélemy in Paris on March 6, 1569, accused of being of the new opinion&rsquo. He was released on August 23, 1570 following the edict of pacification of Saint-Germain (Weiss 1923, 87-9 Droz 1948, 79 Boucher 1983). But this cannot be our Jean Bodin (De Caprariis 1959, 325). None of the various Jean Bodins of whom we have knowledge around 1569 &mdash the student at Angers, the priest at Bourgueil in the parish of Saint-Aubin du Pavoil near Segré, or the merchant at St-Maurice &mdash correspond to the Jean Bodin in whom we are interested (Levron 1948, 73&ndash4). Nor ashould we identify Jean Bodin the philosopher with his various namesakes (Couzinet 1996, 240) who were implicated in the trial of La Môle and Coconnas in 1574 (Holt 1986, 41) or accompanied Brisson on a mission in 1581 (Moreau-Reibel 1933, 258), or got mixed up in the Champvallon affair of the following year (Radouant 1970, 45) or were suspected of having participated in the Babington Plot against Elizabeth I of England (Rose 1980, 215&ndash6).

Equally, there is no tangible or demonstrable proof to support the supposed Protestant leanings of Bodin. Roger Chauviré (1914, 24) speculated, on the basis of his hypothetical stay in Geneva in 1552, that he had perhaps converted to the new faith. This particular supposition is linked to another, more general one, that Bodin had a truly reformed religiosity, coexisting with his other judaising tendencies and inclinations towards natural religion. This is why there is a persistent tendency among certain historians to perceive him as a dissimulating Protestant and &lsquoNicodemite&rsquo. Following Naef and Droz, they believe that Bodin can be identified with &lsquoJehan Bodin de Sainct-Amand diocese de Bourges&rsquo (following Bordier, who, however, provides no references to Jean Bodin, author of the Republic) who spent time in Geneva in 1552, asking to be received as inhabitant there, who married Typhène Renault and had an argument with Jérôme Bolsec (Naef and Droz, 83) and who even became a minister of the Holy Word (Weiss, contradicted by Naef, 153 but see Droz, 83). All these hypotheses, however, have been undermined now that Letizia Fontana (2009) has demonstrated that the Jean Bodin who was present in Geneva in 1552 cannot possibly have been the philosopher. That said, it still remains possible that Bodin occasionally felt sympathy, on the religious grounds, towards Protestantism and Protestants in general, though this stopped short of adherence to the confession of the Reformed faith. Such an attitude could often be found among moderate Catholics, men of letters, jurists, writers and even theologians and was not in conflict with Bodin&rsquos severely negative assessment &mdash on a purely political level &mdash of the Huguenots as a result of their raising arms against their sovereign.


Prince Edward Alexander of France was born at the royal Château de Fontainebleau, on September 19, 1551. He was the 4th son & 6th child of King Henry II and Queen Catherine de' Medici. His older brothers were Francis II of France, Charles IX of France, and Louis of Valois. He was made Duke of Angoulême and Duke of Orléans in 1560, then Duke of Anjou in 1566.

He was his mother's favorite she called him chers yeux ("precious eyes") and lavished fondness and affection upon him for most of his life. His elder brother, Charles, grew to detest him, partially because he resented his better health.

In his youth, Henry was considered the best of the sons of Catherine de' Medici and Henry II. Unlike his father and elder brothers, he had little interest in the traditional Valois pastimes of hunting and physical exercise. Although he was both fond of fencing and skilled in it, he preferred to indulge his tastes for the arts and reading. These predilections were attributed to his Italian mother. At one point in his youth he showed a tendency towards Protestantism as a means of rebelling. At the age of nine, calling himself "a little Huguenot," he refused to attend Mass, sang Protestant psalms to his sister Margaret (exhorting her all the while to change her religion and cast her Book of Hours into the fire), and even bit the nose off a statue of Saint Paul. His mother firmly cautioned her children against such behavior, and he would never again show any Protestant tendencies. Instead, he became nominally Roman Catholic.


The Massacre of Wassy in 1562 ushered in two centuries of Huguenot persecution in France.

Persecution In France

After Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, action taken against Protestants to coerce them into renouncing their faith intensified. This included imprisonment, having soldiers billeted in their homes (Draggonades) and having their children placed in Catholic care.


A walking timeline takes visitors along the central spine of the museum. It starts at the Dutch wall clock made by a Huguenot descendant. Visitors can trace the key events in the French wars of religion and in the hardships Huguenots faced as Calvinist Protestants in France. Their history of their persecution is shown against the backdrop of other local and global persecutions over the course of time. A special feature is the two lamps used when worshipping secretly at night.

Watch the video: Ten Minute English and British History #01 - Early Roman Britain and Boudiccas Rebellion