Catherine de' Medici: A Woman Before her Time by Sara ...

Catherine de' Medici: A Woman Before her Time

by

Sara Grace Ericsson

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts with

Honours in History

Acadia University

April, 2014

© Copyright by Sara G. Ericsson, 2014

ii

This thesis by Sara Grace Ericsson

is accepted in its present form by the

Department of History

as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts with Honours

Approved by the Thesis Supervisor

__________________________ ____________________

Dr. Leigh Whaley Date

Approved by the Head of the Department

__________________________ ____________________

Dr. Paul Doerr Date

Approved by the Honours Committee

__________________________ ____________________

Dr. Matthew Lukeman Date

iii

I, Sara Ericsson, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University

to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or

electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I, however, retain the copyright in my

thesis.

_________________________

Signature of Author

__________________________

Date

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Throughout this long, difficult, frustrating, but ultimately rewarding process, there

are several people who have served to inspire me.

To my mum, whose reassurance I depend on daily;

To my aunt, whose gift was inspiring;

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

insatiable;

To my brother, whose patience knows no bounds;

To my dad, whose faith is appreciated;

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

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

And finally, to my supervisor Dr. Whaley, whose ongoing advice and

encouragement were the main reasons I was able to complete this project.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………...……………………………vi

Introduction.............................................................................1

Chapter 1.................................................................................6

Chapter 2...............................................................................40

Chapter 3...............................................................................66

Conclusion..........................................................................100

Appendix A.........................................................................102

Appendix B.........................................................................103

Appendix C.........................................................................104

Appendix D.........................................................................105

Bibliography........................................................................106

vi

Abstract

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

Historians such as Paul Van Dyke and Jean Héritier sought to change Catherine’s

reputation as a tyrant through evidence of her capabilities as a ruler and political

powerhouse. Others, such as Sir John Ernest Neale and Sir Francis Watson of the

period of “great man historiography,” insisted upon prescribing to the narrative of

her evilness. This thesis shall pursue the same objective as that of Van Dyke and

Héritier and attempt to show that Catherine was indeed a talented politician, who

crafted conciliatory policies and maintained her power through her status as

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

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

Charles IX’s impulsiveness and the mobs of Paris.

1

Introduction

The purpose of this thesis is to present a new interpretation of the political

career of Catherine de' Medici. Its principal argument is to prove that Catherine

successfully established an extensive political career through the calculated

manipulation of the imagery of motherhood and conciliatory policies, legislated to

end the religious conflict between Catholics and Huguenots. The cessation of this

conflict would, in turn, ensure the persistence of her power and authority in

France. Catherine de' Medici emerges among her contemporaries as an

exceptional figure in the history of French politics. Unlike Francis I, Henry II,

Charles IX and Henry III, the Valois kings who ruled France during the 16th

century, she never ruled in her own right. Catherine faced many challenges

throughout her life, and overcame them largely as a result of personal cunning and

initiative, showing a remarkable intelligence in matters of the state as she did so.1

Among her greatest achievements was her ability to portray herself as a woman of

power in a country which had yet to accept this concept.

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

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

1 Paul Van Dyke, Catherine de Médicis, vol. I (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922), 69,

accessed January 27th, 2014,

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049893566;view=1up;seq=209.

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

Press, 2008), 250.

2

destiny, whether it was a success or a failure. As an outsider at the French royal

court, Catherine waited, patiently collecting support to ensure the security of her

position at court.3 It would be years before she was able to exert power

independently as Queen Regent, ruling in the name of her son Charles IX. Until

then, Catherine served as the consort of Henry, and would do so until his death in

1559. From this position, Catherine was able to observe the political schema of

the French court and its power players. Any prospect of direct influence she

carried during this period was snuffed out by figures such as Diane de Poitiers,

the long-time mistress of her husband, whose presence ensured that Henry paid

little to no attention to Catherine, his wife.4

After the birth of their many children, however, Henry accorded Catherine

more trust and responsibilities, naming her regent during his absences beginning

in 1552.5 These regencies, which provided her first opportunity to act as head-of-

state, were an apprenticeship to power for Catherine. After the death of Henry,

Catherine secured herself the regency of her son, the young King Charles IX. As

the ruler of France, she was finally able to exert influence and sought to create

safer conditions within the country for Huguenots, who had been prosecuted

under Henry, and issued a number of edicts aimed at providing them with the

right to worship in designated areas. Catherine placed limitations on Huguenot

worship only to satisfy the Catholics and keep them from inciting conflict. These

edicts were groundbreaking despite their limitations, as they marked the first

3 Jean Héritier, Charlotte Haldane, trans., Catherine de Medici (New York: St. Martin's Press,

1963), 35.

4 Hugh Ross Williamson, Catherine de' Medici (New York: The Viking Press, 1973), 38.

5 Crawford, 651.

3

occasion since the birth of the Huguenot faith that they had enjoyed any official

rights in France.

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

Catherine used a careful combination of accepted norms and political imagery to

secure her role as France's leading political figure. By forging permanent links

between herself and kings, Catherine ensured that she remain the Queen Mother

in the eyes of her subjects. Catherine's decision to use conciliatory policies was

threefold, seeking to maintain her power and to cease religious and political

conflict in France. She also used this approach because of the risk posed by

political factions of the French court, whose ambitions were the main cause of

conflict in France.6 Under the guise of religion,7 the Catholic and Huguenot

factions embarked in a power struggle for political supremacy, fuelled by the

personal ambitions of figures such as Gaspard de Coligny and the Guise family.

It was only when the threat of personal ambition proved too great, as it did

with Coligny,8 that Catherine abandoned her policies and resorted to force to

ensure her power as Queen Mother remain strong. As a result, Catherine became

embroiled in the Saint-Bartholomew's Day Massacre, as the assassination of

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

IX's impulsiveness and the religious fervour of the mob in Paris, resulted in the

murder of thousands of Huguenots throughout France. It is due to the

6 Crawford, 253.

7 Janet Glenn Gray, The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage (Grand Rapids: Baker Book

House, 1981), 101.

8 Gray, 124.

9 Van Dyke, vol ii, 83.

4

inconclusive nature of events leading up to the massacre that Catherine has been

branded as a villain by historians such as Sir John E. Neale and Francis Watson,

though she has never been proven guilty of any deed outside of Coligny's

assassination.

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

Henry. These years are collectively referred to as the age of Catherine, though her

only time as official ruler of France was as Queen Regent from 1560 until 1563 as

the regent for son Charles IX.10 The resounding influence she exerted over her

children as a mother, a role she transferred successfully into politics, ensured her

lasting influence and place as a leading figure in France until the outright

independence of her third and final son, Henry III.11 However, the policies she

was able to legislate, such as the edicts of Saint-Germain and Amboise, do not

represent the full scope of her vision of a religiously and politically united France.

These documents represent the absolute limit of what French society would

accept. Catherine sought to balance the political factions in France to ensure

stability, and legislated accordingly. It was not until Henry IV's Edict of Nantes

that Catherine's true vision of religious tolerance in France would be fulfilled.

Chapter One shall discuss the historiography surrounding Catherine which

has wrongfully convicted her as a villain of French history, and also those who

have attempted to reverse this judgment. Chapter Two shall demonstrate how

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

10 Crawford, 660.

11 Martyn Rady, France: Renaissance, Religion and Recovery, 1494-1610 (London: Hodder &

Stoughton Ltd., 1988), 83.

5

create a lasting image of herself as a wife, widow and mother,12 all in an effort to

forge links between herself and the kings of France. Chapter Three focuses on

Catherine’s handling of the complex religious and political conflicts in France. In

particular, it analyzes her role in the events leading up to and including the Saint-

Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

12 Katherine Crawford, “Catherine de Medicis and the Performance of Political Motherhood,”

The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 31, no. 3 (2000): 657, accessed February 26th, 2014,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2671075.

6

Chapter 1

Historiography

7

Historical enigmas are often the bane of a historian's existence. The

temptation to bypass a deep analysis of a topic in favour of prescribing to an

established historical narrative is ascertained in the following statement by

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

'Paradox!' is generally the cry; but to those who thoroughly examine the history of

modern times, it is evident that historians are privileged liars, who lend their pen

to popular beliefs.”13 According to Balzac, women have been the recipients of this

paradoxical view of history, and Catherine de' Medici has suffered chief among

them. A historical narrative of Catherine as a wicked, cruel and selfish monarch

was thus created, which became so easily prescribed to that it was adopted by

authors of fictional works as well as historians. In 1922, Paul Van Dyke's ground

breaking work attempted to replace these inaccuracies surrounding Catherine, but

was unsuccessful in dispelling all myth.

The myth of Catherine's wickedness is continually fed through how she is

portrayed by historians and authors of fictional works. The theme of Catherine as

different from her contemporaries is presented by the arguments of authors such

as Hugh Williamson, Francis Watson and Alexandre Dumas, who each offer

evidence that Catherine de' Medici was a figure unlike any of her contemporaries.

These differences are portrayed through the deviant activities Catherine immersed

herself in, such as the practice of astrology, which was considered by many as a

dark and evil art.14 Claims of Catherine's 'Machiavellian duplicity,' defined by

13 Honoré de Balzac, About Catherine de' Medici, Seraphita, and Other Stories (Philadelphia:

Avil Publishing Company, 1901), 3.

14 Christopher Warnock, “History of Astrology in the Renaissance,” Renaissance Astrology

(2002), accessed December 18th, 2013,

8

Dictionary Reference as “characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning,

deception, expediency, or dishonesty,”15 are frequent among arguments presented

by authors such as Williamson, who argues that it became evident through her

bipolar treatment of the Huguenots.16 Catherine's personal vendettas are also

depicted and exaggerated by fiction authors such as Alexandre Dumas, who

emphasized them in his hugely popular novel La Reine Margot.17 These three

qualities culminate into the theme of Catherine's 'otherness,' which the authors use

to categorize her as a deviant.

However strong these arguments, elements reflective of Catherine's skill

and prowess, whether as Queen Regent or Queen Mother, emerge. Catherine, full

name Catarina Maria Ramola de' Medici,18 is shown by all portrayals as a

matriarch who sought to pacify and appease arguments rather than provoke them.

As will be seen throughout the following sources, Catherine's quest for the

conciliation of divergent political, social and religious groups was for two

reasons: the stability of her and her own on the throne of France, and to increase

her own power. She sought to ensure her own power and the succession of her

line.

http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/astrologyinrenaissancemain.html.

15 “Machiavellianism,” Dictionary Reference, accessed December 20th, 2013,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machiavellianism?s=t.


17 Alexandre Dumas, La Reine Margot: Part II (New York: The Century Co., 1909), 307.

18 Francis Watson, The Life and Times of Catherine de' Medici (New York: D. Appleton-Century

Company Inc., 1935), 29.

9

Early Historical Fiction

The consideration of historical fiction is a key component in the analysis

of historical figures. Since the great historical fictions of Honoré de Balzac and

Alexandre Dumas, Catherine de' Medici have persisted as a popular subject in

novels, which portray her in different ways. These written works are important for

several reasons. Whether intentional or not, fictional works influence the

evolution of popular opinion on historical figures and events in many ways. Many

historical novels are based on extensive research, and base the portrayal of their

characters, such as Catherine de' Medici, on real circumstances and situations

within which they existed, but then interpret these circumstances and portray them

in different ways. The events such authors choose to include, therefore, become

significant, as they remain in the forefront of memories of the novels' audience.

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

Research, “the historical novel adds flesh to the bare bones that historians are able

to uncover and by doing so provides an account that whilst not necessarily true

provides a clearer indication of past events, circumstances and cultures.”19 As

acknowledged by Phillpott, historical novels interpret true historical events and

figures in different ways, as they are written to capture the attention of an

audience. Historical fiction therefore serves as a stepping stone in the analysis of

historical figures; it should be considered, but used alongside academic sources.

19 Matthew J. Phillpott, “A Novel Approaches Prelude: A Brief History of Historical Fiction,”

Institute of Historical Research, accessed January 16th, 2014,

http://ihrconference.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/mphillpott-history-of-historical-fiction.pdf.

10

Honoré de Balzac, a prolific novelist in nineteenth-century France, writes

in adamant support of Catherine in the preface of his fictional work, About

Catherine de' Medici. Though it is fiction, Balzac built his writing on a strong

historical foundation. Scottish author and historian Sir Walter Scott, a

contemporary of Balzac and literary figure who is widely considered to have

perfected the historical novel,20 dubbed Balzac's writing as both “observation and

imagination.”21 In the preface, Balzac argues convincingly that it was Catherine

alone who saved the throne of France, ruling through an admirable mix of

persistency and courage.22 His examination of the evidence against Catherine,

namely concerning her role in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, is based upon

the use of rationale to determine what conclusions he believes should have been

drawn. Using the parallel of the French Revolution, he examines how other such

massacres can occur.

The massacres of the Revolution are the reply to the massacre of

Saint-Bartholomew. The People, being King, did by the nobility and

the King as the King and the nobility did by the rebels in the sixteenth

century. And popular writers, who know full well that under similar

conditions, the people would do the same again, are inexcusable

when they blame Catherine de' Medici and Charles IX.23

While he is not saying that either incident should have occurred, Balzac serves to

highlight that the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was larger than either

Catherine or Charles IX.

20 “Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed December 20th, 2013,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/529629/Sir-Walter-Scott-1st-Baronet.

21 C.D. Merriman, “Honoré de Balzac,” The Literature Network (2006), accessed December 20th,

2013, http://www.online-literature.com/honore_de_balzac/.

22 Balzac, 6-7.

23 Balzac, 7.

11

However revolutionary this statement might seem, it is important to

examine the biases that Balzac possessed. He was a self-professed devout

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

Europe.25 Balzac was also the ultimate sympathizer of the upper classes, and

therefore may present a skewed analysis of their suffering. In a statement

regarding Catherine's approach to statecraft, he claims that she also knew that the

outcome of free-will, religious liberty, and political liberty – excluding civil

liberty from his list – would destroy France;26 as proof, he offers France in 1840,

which he argues suffered from the lack of suppression of these ideals. As an end

to his portrait, Balzac offers an interesting piece to the puzzle that is his depiction

of Catherine, arguing that her rule was one of a man.27 It seems that even he, who

was so willing to relieve Catherine of any fault, has prescribed to a belief in the

inferiority of the female sex. Balzac has given Catherine credit as a ruler, but only

in a male context.

Another illustrious French writer of the nineteenth-century is Alexandre

Dumas, whose novel La Reine Margot, written in 1845, offers an interesting

dichotomy to Balzac's About Catherine de' Medici. As both men were friends

during the time of their literary success,28 the opposing nature of their novels is

especially striking. The second section of this novel focuses on Catherine's role at

the French court post-massacre, a period which is often left out of the fictional

24 John Marshall Guest, “The Law and Lawyers of Honoré de Balzac,” University of

Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register vol. 60, no. 2 (November 1911): 60,

accessed December 21st, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3313188.

25 Balzac, 8.

26 Balzac, 9.

27 Balzac, 14.

28 Merriman, http://www.online-literature.com/honore_de_balzac/.

12

analysis of Catherine's life for lack of entertaining material. Throughout his

depiction of Catherine as Queen Mother, Dumas focuses on the diverse ways in

which Catherine differed from the rest of the court. Referencing her foreign birth,

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

Catherine's habit – a habit, for that matter, wholly Florentine – to have prayers

and masses read the object of which was known to God and herself.”29 He

continually emphasizes her otherness, through her reliance on such practices as

magic and astrology.

Dumas writes about a certain Florentine astrologer Catherine consulted,

while accompanied by her son Henri of Anjou, to determine the length of her son

Charles' life.30 It is implied, through the novel's narrative that Catherine sought to

place Anjou on the throne, that she is waiting for Charles to die; this is but one of

many dark instances described by Dumas. He also writes of her quest to kill

Henry of Navarre, husband of her daughter Margot, on whom this novel is

centred. “That detested Henry, constantly escaping her snares, which were usually

fatal.”31 Dumas' creation of this evil Catherine is epitomized through the dungeon

he describes, hidden underneath a trap door, that his fictional Catherine made

extensive use of during her reign as Queen Regent.32 This dungeon, where her

victims would plummet approximately 100 feet to their deaths, was a “damp and

unwholesome place.”33 It is such dark depictions of Catherine's character that

29 Dumas, 307.

30 Dumas, 376.

31 Dumas, 329.

32 Dumas, 413.

33 Dumas, 413.

13

sustain the belief in her evil nature and continue to shroud her in darkness.

Paul Van Dyke: A Thorough Biography

Princeton professor and historian Paul Van Dyke's extensive two volume

biography, Catherine de Médicis, completed after ten years of grueling study, has

been widely received as one of the most credible and thorough examinations of

Catherine's life and character. In a review written one year after the biography's

publication, critic Theodore Collier lists the numerous institutions from which

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

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

Italian libraries.34 Collier also emphasizes Van Dyke's use of primary sources as

evidence for his arguments.35 Indeed, Van Dyke's biography intentionally

excluded contemporary biographical works on Catherine, as none were based on

an analysis of primary sources.36

Throughout his biography, Van Dyke emphasizes that Catherine was first

and foremost a mother. In addition to the constant supervision and administration

of her children's education in their youth, Catherine insisted on arranging their

marriages, due to her overwhelming concern on the matter.37 Her maternal

instinct, as emphasized by Van Dyke, is also evident in the letters she wrote

34 Theodore Collier, “Review: Catherine de Médicis by Paul Van Dyke,” The American

Historical Review 28, no. 3 (April 1923): 536, accessed November 26, 2013,


35 Collier, 537.

36 Paul Van Dyke, Catherine de Médicis, vol. I (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922), vii,

accessed November 25, 2013,

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t3dz06f66;view=1up;seq=13.

37 Van Dyke, 9.

14

consistently to Philip II, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, husband of her

deceased daughter Elizabeth, regarding the care of her grandchildren: “Until the

end of her life she wrote continually to their father and to others expressing

anxiety about their care and happiness.”38 Catherine's maternal instinct also

extended to her country; during a period of war, after she had fallen ill for two

months in 1569, Catherine continued to perform her royal duties, which at one

point included a royal council meeting until 4 am and then to a military camp to

appease the quarreling nobles, all while still visibly weakened and fatigued.39

“She showed both courage and curiosity in regard to the actual operations of

war.”40

Van Dyke also acknowledges Catherine's strong belief in the powers of

astrology, an art form whose unpopularity was evident through its banning by the

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

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, a leading Italian philosopher of the Renaissance

who exposed the many inaccurate and contradictory predictions made by

astrologers.42 Though some prophecies Catherine subscribed to came true, such as

those of Nostradamus predicting that three of her sons would ascend the throne,43

Van Dyke argues that Catherine's strong belief was sometimes taken advantage of

by people who claimed to be astrologers, a title which was used interchangeably

38 Van Dyke, 10.

39 Van Dyke, 20.

40 Van Dyke, 20.

41 Van Dyke, 22.

42 Brian Copenhaver, “Giovanni Pico della Mirandola,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Summer 2012), accessed December 21st, 2013, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pico-della-

mirandola/.

43 Van Dyke, 9.

15

with that of magician. He wrote that:

As time went on the credulity of Catherine leading her to be preyed

upon by men who would send her ...reports... made the third of her

sons to mount the throne very angry and he said, in the presence of

two witnesses, 'He was tired of seeing his mother cheated by false

magicians who got a great deal of money out of her and didn't do

anything.'44

Catherine's reliance on this so-called art form was so obvious that it was even

noted by her son. 45

As he sought to give a fair analysis of Catherine as a ruler, Van Dyke

acknowledges that she had been planning on ridding France of Huguenot leaders

before 1569.46 However, contrary to subsequent authors, Van Dyke also discussed

what impact international circumstances had on Catherine's decision-making.

According to Van Dyke, “it soon became evident that the question of peace or war

as not one which could be decided... [by] her court policy. The Huguenots were

still able to keep the field and so long as they kept the field, there was always the

chance of foreign interference on their behalf.”47 Support existed for Protestant

groups in both England and Germany, countries which could easily pose a threat

to Catherine and the place of her family on the throne of France should they

invade. Catherine was therefore temporarily driven to accept peace, according to

Van Dyke, to ensure that France remain stable, regardless of her personal want or

lack of a want of peace.48

44 Van Dyke, 23.

45 Van Dyke, 23.

46 Van Dyke, 21.

47 Van Dyke, 29.

48 Van Dyke, 31.

16

The evidence Van Dyke includes in his ground breaking academic analysis

of Catherine de' Medici presents a monarch who consistently acted in what she

thought was the best interest of her family and her country. Catherine’s motivation

is reflected in her second move of conciliation with the French Huguenots in

1569: Van Dyke argues that she was not a fool, duly noting the military strength

of the Huguenots.49 His view of Catherine as a competent, effective ruler was

indeed a new one. Van Dyke's effective use of primary sources contributed to the

success of his analysis, a revolutionary interpretation of Catherine.

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

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

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

Vickers, editors of Rewriting the Renaissance, offer the following as explanation

for why views of the Renaissance and its women have been subject to change:

“Our views of the Renaissance have, until quite recently, been largely shaped by

educated middle-class men writing for, and frequently about, other educated

men.”50 Nowhere is this more evident than in the “great man” historiography of

the 19th and early 20th centuries, which did not end after Van Dyke.

49 Van Dyke, 35.

50 Margaret W. Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers, eds., Rewriting the

Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe (Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press, 1986), xv.

17

“Great Man” Historiography

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

Carlyle, a prolific Scottish essayist and historian of the 19th century. Carlyle stated

that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men,” and cited hero

figures such as Muhammad, Dante, Martin Luther and Napoleon as the greatest

contributors to history.51 Of the authors that follow, Francis Watson, Sir John

Ernest Neale, and Milton Waldman are its foremost subscribers. The titles of the

biographies can themselves be indicative of this style of historiography, as is

evident with The Life and Times of Catherine de' Medici and The Age of

Catherine de' Medici. It is also noteworthy that the foremost prescribers to this

method of historiography were men, as previously noted by Carlyle.52

Published in 1935, Watson's analysis of Catherine is at times

condescending and others considerate. Catherine, as argued by Watson, learned

the talents of dissimulation and cynicism at a young age.53 As she became

integrated into the French court as Henri II's wife, Watson suggests that there

were some at the French court who idolized her, but more who disdained her – a

sentiment that would last a lifetime. To the people of France, in Watson's opinion,

“Catherine would remain forever 'the Italian woman' – spoken sometimes with a

curious admiration, but more often with mistrust or hatred.”54 Watson does

acknowledge, however, that much of this hatred was due to Catherine's interloper

51 “Thomas Carlyle,” Encyclopaedie Britannica, accessed November 27, 2013,

http://www.britannica.com/checked/topic/96126/Thomas-Carlyle.

52 “Thomas Carlyle,” http://www.britannica.com/checked/topic/96126/Thomas-Carlyle.

53 Watson, 29.

54 Watson, 45.

18

status.55 She was constantly rumoured to be at the centre of murderous plots, the

first among which surrounded the death of the Dauphin, Henri's older brother.56

Throughout his analysis, Watson maintains that Catherine's actions and

decisions transcended her emotions. Describing her as a monument of heartless

common sense, he claims that this innate ability set her apart from other women

of the era.57 Catherine's treatment of the Catholic-Huguenot conflict was hugely

reflective of this skill. After the massacre of Huguenots worshipers at Vassy in

1562, Catherine sought to maintain peace and public order, agreeing to advise

both Protestant and Catholic parties and their leaders after the event.58 She

understood that each party sought to control her son, the young King Charles IX,

whom she presided over as regent; by advising both groups, she ensured that the

authority of the crown continue to reside solely within herself, by preventing

either side from holding power.59 As evident through the examples he uses,

Watson argues that Catherine made decisions based on her pursuit for the security

of her power.60

As a general commentary on the women of the Renaissance, Watson made

the following statement: “In the early Renaissance it is the women who modify by

their influence the political excesses to which the men are tempted, but it is the

men who rule and accept the responsibility.”61 Directing this statement to

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

55 Watson, 65.

56 Watson, 65.

57 Watson, 200.

58 Watson, 216.

59 Watson, 216.

60 Watson, 223.

61 Watson, 127.

19

sons on the throne in front of her and stands above them to manoeuvre her pieces

on the board.”62 Watson argues that Catherine dominated her children, most

notably her sons. He does not deny her the credit of effective ruling, but it is

implied in his argument that she manipulated her sons to further her personal

political agenda, through his reference to a chess board.

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

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

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

University College of North Wales. His speech presented an interesting argument;

partially sympathetic to Catherine's cause, he argued that she possessed great

charm and vitality.63 Though partially complimentary, the characteristics

emphasized by Neale are begrudgingly female. These skills, according to Neale,

predisposed Catherine to a natural inclination for politics, but provided her little

skill as a statesman.64 According to Neale, “she lacked any grasp of principles.

...She was, in fact, a politician, a very able politician, not a statesman; and her

charm coupled with her vitality made her most successful at the game.”65 To

credit one with the skill of a politician is simply to say that they are good at

arguing and persuasion. Through his statement, Neale has reduced Catherine to an

individual who relied on an ability to hold sway and influence over people,

without possessing any competencies in regards to statecraft.

62 Watson, 127.

63 J.E. Neale, The Age of Catherine de Medici (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers,

Incorporated, 1962), 41.

64 Neale, 41.

65 Neale, 41.

20

Neale effectively highlights several details which explain the hatred of

Catherine by the French court. Her marriage was considered a mésalliance, an

alliance that served absolutely no benefit to France. She was a woman of inferior

birth, a fact she was constantly reminded of after becoming a princess of France.66

He continues his argument by adding that she herself both understood and

accepted that she was not of the same rank as the other women at court. He states

that, “she never overcame the sense of her inferior origin, and her exaggerated

respect for royalty was time and again to influence her policy.”67 Her so-called

inferior origin was to cause her to seek increased security as a monarch, according

to Neale, who argues that this played a role in her visceral attitude toward

religious conflict in France. He emphasizes that Catherine would seek any means

to establish her personal and her family's control over the throne: “[She was] a

frantic woman determined to save herself and rescue France from its deadly

plague of religious strife, for the wholesale murder of the Huguenot leaders in

Paris.”68 According to Neale, she would even go so far as to order the slaughter of

thousands of innocents, if she believed it would guarantee the throne's security.69

Neale alludes to this event through his position on Catherine's relationship

with her children. He does not deny the fact that she possessed a great love for

them, as so many other historians have done, but argues that her domination of

them impeded them from proper independent growth, stating that, “She loved her

children and dominated them with her affection and personality in a way that was

66 Neale, 41.

67 Neale, 41.

68 Neale, 78.

69 Neale, 78.

21

ruinous to them. The blackest event in her whole story – the Massacre of St.

Bartholomew – had its root in this instinct.”70 His position on this historical event

is therefore very clear; his argument suggests that he was entirely supportive of

the constructed narrative that Catherine bore full responsibility for the Huguenot

massacre.

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

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

Waldman, whose primary interest was as a publisher, famously refused to

published Tolkien's Lord of the Rings due to his concern over its length.71

Waldman portrays Catherine as a mother who believed the domination she exerted

over her sons was essential to securing the throne against the influence of

competing forces of the Guise family, allied with Scotland through their niece

Mary Queen of Scots, and her Bourbon and Montmorency rivals, who both

maintained a strong faction at court, were the main threats against the Valois

line.72 As these families posed serious threats to the Valois line, Catherine

understood that her son on the throne would be dominated by these divergent

court factions, and therefore sought to ensure that her influence was the greatest.73

With this argument, Waldman offers a counter explanation for Catherine's

dominance over her children.

70 Neale, 42.

71 Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull, “Milton Waldman,” Tolkein Gateway, accessed

December 22nd, 2013, http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Milton_Waldman.

72 Milton Waldman, Biography of a Family: Catherine de Medici and her Children (Cambridge

The Riverside Press, 1936), 14-15.

73 Waldman, 22.

22

In his chapter “The Great Matriarchy,” Waldman suggests that Catherine

viewed herself as a matriarch of France, and the two diverging religions of

Catholics and Huguenots as bickering children.74 He argues that she believed, as a

mother, that she was fully capable of bringing these two parties to coexist

peacefully.75 As such, Waldman was sympathetic in his portrayal of Catherine and

her role in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. By using such distinct maternal

qualities, Waldman does not seek to tarnish Catherine as a weak woman, but

rather to give an honest portrait of her. Though his views may be dated, they do

set him apart from many of his contemporaries, such as J.E. Neale, who confined

Catherine to a much harsher character.

Waldman also discusses the various relationships Catherine had with her

children, and what impact these had on their growth as individuals. He argues that

her domination of their early lives was not fueled by her desire to see them

flourish academically or morally; instead, Waldman states that Catherine designed

the education of her children to “assist the little princes and princesses to hold

their own in a sadly unscrupulous world.”76 He argues that she was quick to

recommend that they trust no one but her, and that they guard themselves from

weak emotions.77 Waldman's focus on Catherine's relationship with Charles is

also noteworthy; her favouring, along with the rest of France, of Henri over

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

74 Waldman, 66.

75 Waldman, 66.

76 Waldman, 78.

77 Waldman, 78.

23

of anger.78

Waldman's analysis of Catherine de' Medici meets an impasse as he

discusses her role in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. He argues that Condé's

attempt to kidnap Charles ignited Catherine's hatred of the Huguenots, and her

move to rid France of their presence.79 “No longer was Catherine neutral between

the parties, seeking only the quickest possible peace. She had begun, though

unconsciously as yet, to play with the idea of crushing the Huguenots once and

for all.”80 This quotation is pure speculation, and does not bear any direct

evidence suggesting that this moment did indeed inspire such a decision, much

less, as has yet to be determined, whether Catherine was involved in ordering the

massacre.

Moving Away From the “Great Man” Theory

Though some authors continued to support dated historiographical

methods after the publishing of Van Dyke's work, others chose to follow his

example by actively searching for a more complex explanation of Catherine's

character. By placing her in the social context of a 16th century woman, the

following authors attempted to explain and justify Catherine's actions through the

context of her situation. First published in 1940, Jean Héritier's Catherine de

Medici evokes the same sympathetic view of Catherine as Paul Van Dyke, whose

work Héritier used as a foundation for his own research.81 Héritier argues that

78 Waldman, 79.

79 Waldman, 67.

80 Waldman, 68-69.

81 Henri Drouot, “Jean Héritier – Catherine de Medicis,” Revue d'histoire de l'Église de France

24

Catherine was a monarch misunderstood by her subjects; as a woman, the

political boundaries she breached were ahead of her time.82 He also suggests that

her husband Henri II was a useless monarch, who accomplished nothing for

France, and that proof of this lies in the legislation which future political figures

in France chose to follow.83 “What did remain of [François'] activities was saved

and preserved by Catherine de Medici. Henri IV, Louis XIII and Richelieu,

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

François and Catherine.”84 If these rulers did indeed chose to follow the

legislation set out by Catherine, then Héritier is absolutely right in assuming that

she deserves more credit as a monarch then Henri II, even though she ruled as

regent, and not in her own right.

Héritier also emphasized that Catherine had an intricate knowledge in the

navigation of court politics. She understood her place at the French court as a

young princess, married to the second prince: she was not expected to inherit the

throne, and so acted obediently and submissively.85 She also had a well-rounded

Renaissance education, and a passion for astrology, which she followed alongside

her Catholic religion.86 As argued by Héritier and other authors, this obsession

with astrology would be used by members of the French court to vilify her, as it

contributed to their misunderstanding of her. Héritier occupies a similar stance on

vol. 27, no. 112 (1941): 243, accessed December 22nd, 2013,

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rhef_0300-

9505_1941_num_27_112_2924_t1_0243_0000_4.


1963), “Preliminary Note.”

83 Héritier, 34.

84 Héritier, 34.

85 Héritier, 35.

86 Héritier, 43.

25

Catherine's role in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, insisting that she was not

responsible for its occurrence. “Catherine was always to be the messenger of

peace; a messenger, alas, misunderstood and fought against.”87

Héritier argues that Catherine consistently worked to maintain a peaceful

kingdom, but was willing to use violent tactics should they induce effective

outcomes, a practice her extensive studies of Machiavelli had taught her.88

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

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

Héritier describes how she could be simultaneously caring and harsh:

The Queen Mother was not cruel, as she had proved time and time

again. Historians may leave to her libellers the legend of an

imaginary Medici who delighted in availing herself from poison.

But if she was not cruel neither was Catherine tender-hearted. She

could be hard, and could watch torturings as calmly as she was

prepared to risk her own life in the trenches of Rouen and Le

Havre.89

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

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

Hugh Ross Williamson, a historian, playwright and author, published his

biography Catherine de' Medici five years before he died in 1978.90 Earlier in his

life, Williamson experienced an interesting change in religious attitude; beginning

as a Nonconformist, he then became an Anglican clergyman and later converted to

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

87 Héritier, 44.

88 Héritier, 313.

89 Héritier, 313.

90 “Hugh Ross Williamson,” Sophia Institute Press, accessed November 24, 2013,

http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/cw_contributorinfo.aspx?ContribID=72&Name=

Hugh+Ross+Williamson.

91 http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/cw_contributorinfo.aspx?ContribID=72&Name=Hugh+Ross+

26

ruled is also interesting, and reflective of the same change in views as his

religious affiliations. Throughout his book, Williamson consistently emphasizes

Catherine's use of Machiavelli's political treatise The Prince, insisting that she

made such frequent reference to it that it became known as her bible.92 He then

argues that Catherine's “Machiavellan duplicity” became increasingly evident

through the public's belief that she harboured sympathies for Huguenots, when

she supposedly had none.93 Though he offers no explanation of the term

Machiavellan duplicity, it is self-explanatory, meaning to pretend to subscribe to

two different practices for the benefit of oneself.94 Williamson therefore implies

that Catherine based her personal and political decisions on this method.

In addition to his belief in her duplicity, Williamson also discusses the

popular belief in Catherine's otherness at the court of France, which was

encouraged not only by her foreign status but her devotion to astrology. He claims

that the court's belief in her otherness caused many to believe she personally

caused every accident or death that occurred.95 When the Dauphin Francis died

after drinking a glass of water at a tennis match, his loyal assistant Montecuculi

was charged with his poisoning; Catherine was immediately seen as a conspirator

to this crime. “It was enough for the populace that Montecuculi was an Italian and

the death of the Dauphin made Catherine's husband heir to the throne for them to

maintain that 'the Italian woman' was responsible for the poisoning.”96 Williamson

Williamson.

92 Williamson, 14.

93 Williamson, 57.

94 “Machiavellianism,” Dictionary Reference, accessed December 20th, 2013,


95 Williamson, 43.

96 Williamson, 43.

27

also claims that seven out of the eight people who decided to order a massacre on

St. Bartholomew were Italian, except for one full Frenchman.97 Though he means

to increase her otherness, Williamson includes her two sons Charles IX and Henry

III in his list of Italians.98 His failure to highlight this detail infers that there are

others that he may have left out in his analysis as well.

In 1988, Frederic Baumgartner, an American professor at Virginia Tech,

published his book Henry II. Though his book is a biographical sketch of Henry

II, there is very little mention of Catherine and her role as Queen Consort, a

surprising fact given the large focus paid to the period after which Henry became

King of France. When he does mention Catherine, Baumgartner emphasizes why

and how she learned in her youth to use charm and wit, rather than her beauty, to

establish alliances.99 He argues that Catherine was aware of the inferiority of her

looks, and therefore chose to use her intelligence to further her status at court.100

He also details other measures she would later depend upon to ensure her and her

family's security upon the throne, such as the tearing down of her enemies.

There existed a commonplace myth that Catherine had poisoned Francis,

the dauphin, to further the interests of herself and her husband, as noted in 1935

by Francis Watson.101 Of this myth, Baumgartner explains that not only did

members of the French court buy into it because of Catherine's position as wife of

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

97 Williamson, 41.

98 Williamson, 41.

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

Press, 1988), 30.

100 Baumgartner, 30.

101 Watson, 65.

28

the era.102 Catherine's otherness certainly played a role in manufacturing the right

circumstances for a public opinion which frequently moved against her; her own

husband favoured another above her. Though she never wore the crown, his

mistress Diane de Poitiers benefited initially to a far greater extent than

Catherine.103 Catherine's contempt for Diane was controlled, but apparent on a

few occasions. Baumgartner argues that it likely amounted to an evil deed on one

occasion. “There may have been a blacker element to Catherine's resentment.

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

Nemours arrange for acid to be thrown in Diane's face to disfigure her famed

beauty.”104

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

Baumgartner chose to include it in his historical examination of Catherine's

actions during the time she endured the mistress of her husband infers that he

believes there is a strong possibility that such an action occurred. It is clear that

the author believes that Catherine was not unwilling to resort to such ploys to

weaken the influence of her enemies, or in this case the mistress of her husband.

Modern Female Historians

As male historians were the primary followers of the 'great man'

historiography, female historians have become its biggest objectors. Nicola M.

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




29

the practice of analyzing the situation within which Catherine de' Medici found

herself by employing careful considerations of her social context. Sutherland

argues against the popular belief in Catherine's wickedness through a presentation

of evidence from the written testimonies of three contemporaries of Catherine

from the late 16th and early 17th centuries; these individuals portrayed Catherine

as an effective ruler who was a victim of her circumstances.105 Gray also

denounces Catherine's wickedness, arguing that she consistently sought to create a

stable kingdom.106 Finally, Sheila Ffolliott argues that Catherine had to construct

links between herself and former monarchs to create an image of herself as a

strong ruler due to male-driven society within which she lived.107

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

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

Medici was a woman who attempted to navigate through a difficult set of

circumstances to the best of her abilities. Published in 1978, Sutherland' article

offers a plausible explanation of why past and present authors simply assume

Catherine's evil nature. To begin, Sutherland establishes that all hatred stemmed

directly from Catherine's perceived role in the St. Bartholomew's Day

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

105 N. M. Sutherland, “Catherine de Medici: The Legend of the Wicked Italian Queen,” The

Sixteenth Century Journal 9, 2 (July 1978): 45, accessed November 5, 2013,



House, 1981), 61.

107 Sheila Ffolliott, “Catherine de' Medici as Artemisia: Figuring the Powerful Widow,” Margaret

W. Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers, eds., Rewriting the Renaissance: The

Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe (Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press, 1986), 228.

108 Sutherland, 45.

30

the event a simpler solution than attempting to understand it fully.109 Sutherland

suggests that the young King Charles IX and Duke of Guise were possible

culprits, yet acknowledges that historians continue to lay blame solely with

Catherine.110 Sutherland discusses a dichotomy that currently exists in the

perception of Catherine by modern historians, and notes that a similar one existed

during Catherine's own lifetime as well. The individuals who admired her were

comprised both of Catholics and Huguenots, as were those who vilified her.111

Sutherland correctly states that Catherine is a subject upon which people

cannot agree. Historians who lived as her contemporaries, however, largely

accepted that she was not wicked, but merely a woman who “struggled against

forces so powerful that she could never hope to overcome.”112 Interestingly, these

contemporaries were all men; Sutherland specifies the works of Jacques-Auguste

de Thou, Agrippa d'Aubigné, and Enrico Caterino Davila as the three most

acclaimed histories of the era, all published in the first thirty years of the 17th

century.113 These men all had some personal acquaintance with Catherine, but

were of contrasting social and cultural backgrounds; de Thou was a French

historian, and president of the Paris Parlement in 1595,114 d'Aubigné a French

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

109 Sutherland, 45.

110 Sutherland, 45.

111 Sutherland, 46.

112 Sutherland, 46.

113 Sutherland, 46.

114 “Jacques-Auguste de Thou,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed November 6, 2013,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/593465/Jacques-Auguste-de-Thou.

115 “Agrippa d'Aubigné (1552-1630),” Éditions Arfuyen, accessed November 6, 2013,

http://www.arfuyen.fr/html/ficheauteur.asp?id_aut=1165.

31

Religion for Catherine.116 According to Sutherland, the emerging legend of

wicked Queen Catherine began quietly in the 17th century, focusing on her

supposed ambition, and reached new heights in the 18th century, when her

treachery and lust for personal gain were added to the list of her evil qualities.117

She argues that her reputation as a truly evil monarch was cemented by the second

half of the same century.118

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

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

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

They faced constant discrimination from Catholic forces throughout the country,

but found a surprising ally in Catherine de' Medici, according to the author.120

After an official count requested by Catherine, 2,150 Huguenot churches were

cited as existing in France.121 Catherine's stance on the Huguenots was most

certainly influenced by the sheer volume of their population, as their support

could ensure a more stable throne for her and her children. As argued by Gray,

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

The author uses this to explain why Catherine believed she could mend the rift

that existed between Catholics and Huguenots at the colloquy at Poissy, an

occasion on which she underestimated what influence each church carried

116 “Enrico Caterino Davila,” Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, accessed November 6, 2013,

http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/d/enrico_caterino_davila.html.

117 Sutherland, 47.

118 Sutherland, 47-48.

119 “Women and Gender Studies,” The College of New Jersey, accessed December 22nd, 2013,

http://wgs.pages.tcnj.edu/people/faculty/.

120 Gray, 61.

121 Gray, 77.

122 Gray, 102.

32

internationally, as well as the difficulty of her task.123

Though she acknowledges that the colloquy was a failure, Gray does not

discuss the event as a political blundering of Catherine's. Gray argues that

Catherine, as is apparent in her attempt at consolidating both churches,

consistently sought to create a stable kingdom, which would in turn provide her

with a stable throne. As explanation as to why Catherine arguably resorted to

poison and assassins as a means of disposing of her enemies, the author offers the

following: “She sensed her precarious situation due to the lack of a strong

sovereign, so she pursued policies that were makeshift, expedient and

deceitful.”124 Catherine's thirst for stability is also what drove her to decide that

Coligny and the other Huguenot leaders must die.125

While acknowledging that Catherine played a role, Gray also does not

condemn her to the entire blame of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, but

rather discusses a combination of contributing factors. As the royal family,

Charles IX excluded, became wary of Coligny, there was an increasing response

from the Huguenots of Paris against the guards who were becoming increasingly

numerous across the city. It was this increasing violence, not Catherine's personal

vengeance against the faith, that Gray argues moved Catherine and her advisors to

decide that the Huguenot leaders, not the entire people themselves, must be

eliminated.126

123 Gray, 103.

124 Gray, 101.

125 Gray, 132-133.

126 Gray, 135.

33

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

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

“Since we found it advisable for [Coligny] to be killed, he too wanted it, but also

the death of all the Huguenots of France, so that none would remain to reproach

him later.”127 Gray uses this piece as evidence, yet it must be noted that it came

from Henry of Anjou, who was arguably Catherine's favourite son,128 and

therefore may not be accurate. However accurate this source, Gray argues that the

massacre began with specific Huguenots killed by Anjou's forces, and continued

after the mob in Paris became enraged.129 Gray, by including this evidence, does

not prescribe to the belief that Catherine ordered a mass execution of Huguenots.

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

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

Difference in Early Modern Europe written by Sheila Ffolliott, discusses the

image Catherine had to sculpt of herself to ensure that she be seen as the only

legitimate choice for the regency of her young son, Charles IX.130 According to

Ffolliott, a professor of art history at the University of Pennsylvania who has

spoken about and published work on Catherine de' Medici,131 France would not

bend easily to Catherine, as the ancient Salic Law had ensured that no woman

could rule France by herself;132 it was therefore essential for Catherine to create

what Ffolliott describes as an iconography of power. “In the ritualized world that

127 Gray, 136-137.

128 Gray, 131.

129 Gray, 141-143.

130 Ffolliott, 228.

131 “Sheila Ffolliott,” The Medici Archive Project, accessed December 21st, 2013,

http://www.medici.org/board-trustees/sheila-ffoliott.

132 Ffolliott, 228.

34

was the French court, the queen mother now needed her own iconography of

power to articulate the active role she intended to play and to establish her with

her public.”133 The black clothing she wore both in everyday life and in her

portraits solidified her status as a widow and, as argued by Ffolliott, forged a

permanent link with the deceased Henry.134 As a woman, Catherine had to

legitimize herself as a contemporary to other monarchs of the age.

Ffilliott also argues that Catherine used her status as a widow and mother

to enhance her image, and created a comparison between herself and the story of

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

B.C.135 As a ruler, Artemisia was said to possess the ideal qualities of a woman,

yet the intelligence of a man, which allowed her to govern effectively.136 “She

proved the perfect prototype for Catherine in that she both dramatically mourned

the loss of her husband – the rightful monarch – and stood as an authoritative

ruler in his stead.”137 The story was altered to include daily activities of Artemisia

that mirrored Catherine's own, and was depicted in tapestries where the public

could take notice; such depictions included her governing of the kingdom after

her husband's death and caring for her son, a character who was invented to

correspond with Charles IX.138 Artemisia and Catherine, through her intended

comparison, were thus seen as exceptional female rulers, who transcended the

general inferiority of women.139

133 Ffolliott, 228.

134 Ffolliott, 228.

135 Ffolliott, 230.

136 Ffolliott, 232.

137 Ffolliott, 230.

138 Ffolliott, 232.

139 Ffolliott, 233.

35

Modern Historical Fiction

Authors of fictional works who depict Catherine in sixteenth-century

France diverge on their views of her character. The year in which they were

written does not seem to have an effect on the opinion they possess; the opinion

seems to rest rather entirely with which historical perspective they chose to

convey through their work. Some, such as Honoré de Balzac, offer an

understanding and dynamic portrayal of Catherine, seen as a woman who oversaw

her children's every need and ruled France with an unmatched capability. Others,

such as Jean Plaidy, choose to paint a portrait of a manipulative, evil woman who

was Catherine, interested solely in her advancement through the positions of her

sons, and who resorted to black magic to ensure her success. Though such works

do not carry the same critical weight as historical texts, they are nevertheless

crucial to Catherine's portrait, as their choice of what type of character to

represent holds sway with the opinion of readers everywhere.

Catherine de’ Medici has also enjoyed a revival in the popular culture of

the 20th and 21st centuries, most clearly in fictitious literature. Written in 1951,

Jean Plaidy's novel Madame Serpent is reflective of the belief that Catherine was

an overly-ambitious villain. Plaidy, whose real name is Eleanor Hibbert, also used

such pseudonyms as Victoria Holt and Philippa Carr.140 Her story begins as

Catherine arrives in France, making the switch from the Medici duchessina to the

dauphinesse of France.141 Plaidy depicts Catherine as a bitter young bride, who

140 Elizabeth Walter, “Obituary: Jean Paidy,” The Independent, January 20th, 1993, accessed

December 22nd, 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-jean-plaidy-

1479699.html.

141 Jean Plaidy, Madame Serpent (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1951), 10.

36

became brooding in nature due to her husband's affair with the seemingly divine

Diane de Poitiers, his mistress until he died.142 Plaidy emphasizes the anger this

relationship cultivated in Catherine, and describes how it changed her character.

“She scarcely recognized herself. … The only brightness [in her face] was the

blood where her sharp teeth had bitten the flesh of her lips. Her eyes were cruel

with hatred. She was an older Catherine now.”143 This quotation reflects the kind

of portrait Plaidy sought to create of Catherine; though she actively acknowledged

the role of Henry's affair, Plaidy harboured no sympathies for Catherine, and used

the legend of her wicked nature as inspiration for the character. In her fictional

account, Plaidy emphasizes this moment, when Catherine learned of Henry's love

of Diane de Poitiers, as the awakening of her true self.144

Carolyn Meyer, an American author who has written on other royal figures

such as Elizabeth I, Mary Tudor, and Anne Boleyn, offers a portrait of a young

Catherine full of courage, tenacity and compassion. Catherine's humanist

education is emphasized,145 along with her precarious life as the last remaining

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

I have survived and endured. Not everyone is pleased about that.”146 She also

reflects upon Catherine's legendary capabilities of persuasion, and writes about

exchanges between Catherine and Alessandro, the bastard son of Pope Clement

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

142 Plaidy, 81.

143 Plaidy, 113.

144 Plaidy, 115.

145 Carolyn Meyer, Duchessina (Boston: Graphia, 2007), 22.

146 Meyer, 1.

147 Meyer, 25.

37

according to Meyer's portrayal, that Catherine discovered she would have to

create ways to get what she wanted, rather than rely on feminine charms.

In her novel, Meyer also highlights the unequal status of men and women

in 16th century Europe, a theme that haunted Catherine throughout her entire life.

Citing an occasion when Catherine had returned to live at Palazzo Medici, Meyer

depicts an instance when Catherine's tutor has ceased her reading lessons, a move

supported by the belief that too much knowledge was dangerous in women.148

This is reflected in her depiction of Catherine's reunion with Pope Clement also,

whose overwhelming display of affection in front of Rome was followed by

months of little communication. “After our first emotional meeting, my 'uncle' -

or whatever he was – paid little attention to me.”149 Meyer continues by outlining

several examples of Clement exerting control over Catherine, attempting to mould

her into a desirable candidate for marriage, preferably for his political gain.150 It is

evident that Meyer's portrayal of Catherine is a sympathetic one, supported by her

focus on Catherine's sombre childhood and her life as Clement's pawn.

The Devil's Queen, written by Jeanne Kalogridis and published in 2009,

gives a startlingly dark portrayal of Catherine de' Medici. Kalogridis is not

entirely unsympathetic, but her novel does not look to extract compassionate

feelings from its reader. It offers instead a different kind of depiction of Catherine,

not one of a hopeless female, but rather a desperate individual driven by the need

to protect her husband.151 The novel describes several occasions when Catherine

148 Meyer, 78-79.

149 Meyer, 138.

150 Meyer, 141.

151 Jeanne Kalogridis, The Devil's Queen (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2009), 217.

38

herself practiced astrology. There is much historical evidence to suggest that she

did indeed rely on astrologers and other magicians to aid her in matters, such as

conceiving a child, and to predict the future, yet none that suggest she practiced

such magic herself.

This story is a continuation of the narrative which suggests Catherine was

a darkly manipulative wife, queen, and mother. However, it is interesting that

Kalogridis should suggest Catherine practiced magic to help others, such as her

husband. The historical record is more reflective of her wishing to help herself in

such matters as childbirth. Nevertheless, Catherine's desperation to protect her

husband is evident through the author's description of the means she was willing

to go to in an effort to secure his safety; before instructing Catherine on how to

achieve her desired goals, the magician Ruggieri says to Catherine, “I warn you,

Madame la Dauphine, that to get blood, you must give blood. ...Here is where a

strong will and a strong stomach are needed, for it is not your blood of which we

speak.”152 Catherine's yearning for the assurance of the stability of herself and her

family is evident, though Kalogridis has chosen to construct it within a terrible

scenario.

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

Catherine de' Medici has suffered greatly in the historical record. The historical

narrative of Catherine's evil nature was a by-product of this method of

historiography, which authors such as Francis Watson, Sir John Neale, and Milton

152 Kalogridis, 217.

39

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

Catherine de Medicis, based solely upon evidence gathered through primary

source research. His attempt at creating an accurate analysis of Catherine's life did

not eradicate the 'great man' biographers, but acted instead as the beginning of a

movement that grew as historians sought to understand Catherine within her

social context, among which historians such as Jean Héritier and Janet Glenn Gale

are included. Catherine's dedication to the throne, though she was not always

upon it herself, is evident through the skill with which she ruled and exerted

influence over France.

40

Chapter 2

Beginnings, the Regency and Establishment of Power

41

This chapter will examine how Catherine de' Medici rose to power and

established her influence in France. While serving as Queen Consort, Queen

Regent, and Queen Mother of France, Catherine de' Medici used motherhood as

her main source of power. It was only once her son Charles IX became king, and

she his regent, that she was able to establish her place as the major power player

of the French Royal Court. Her power continued after her regency ended, as she

was able to continue to exert influence as the mother of the king through the use

of political imagery, linking her to her deceased husband and living sons.

Catherine used these tactics to establish herself due to the overwhelming barriers

that existed, such as Salic law, her role as wife of the king, and her secondary

status to Henry's mistress Diane de Poitiers, which inhibited her from holding a

position of power in her own name. Catherine successfully overcame these

barriers by cementing her status as Henry II's widow, remaining permanently clad

in black and mourning her husband for all to see in public, and, through the use of

her status as a mother, presenting herself as the only eligible candidate for the

regency of Charles IX.

As dictated by Salic Law, no woman in France was allowed to inherit and

rule over land in her own name in France. When her husband Henry II died in

1559, Catherine de' Medici became the head of the government of France in the

name of her son, Charles IX, who was still a minor and too young to rule. She was

not Queen in her own right, yet successfully petitioned the King's private council

to become Queen Regent. To establish herself as regent, Catherine created a new

avenue through which a woman could legitimately rule France: as a mother. She

42

drew her legitimacy as a queen from her motherhood and based her regency upon

keeping the name of her son and his position as King both strong and secure. As

Queen Regent, Catherine continued to keep her motherhood at the core of her

political efforts, ensuring that her political authority continued after her regency

ended.

To establish why Catherine chose to use motherhood as her main power

source, I will examine her origins, beginning with her life in Italy and then in

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

Henry, a period during which she wielded little to no power as Queen Consort and

often fell second to Henry's mistress, Diane de Poitiers. The latter half of the

marriage will also be analyzed as a period during which Catherine exercised some

limited authority as Henry's appointed regent during his absences. Finally, I will

discuss the matriarchal image Catherine forged for herself, as the wife of the

deceased king, mother of the current king, and mother of France, and the first

measures she took to establish her authority.

Early Life

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

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

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

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

153 Francis Watson, The Life and Times of Catherine de' Medici (New York: D. Appleton-Century

Company, Inc., 1935), 9.

43

descendant of the powerful Bourbon family.154 Aware of the stigmas associated

with their bourgeois origins, Catherine's great-grandfather Lorenzo the

Magnificent created a duchy in Florence, which became a hereditary position

within the Medici family. In addition, Lorenzo also commissioned the creation of

a grand family history to emphasize the glorious history of the Medici family.155

One year after the return of Lorenzo and Madeleine to Florence from

successfully securing the Duchy of Urbino, Catarina Maria Romola de' Medici

was born the 13th of April, 1519.156 Within the following month, both Catherine's

mother and father were dead, leaving her in the care of various family members

and assorted convents throughout Italy over the next fourteen years.157 While she

stayed with her aunt Clarice Strozzi in Rome, Catherine received a proper Medici

education beginning at a young age, and was constantly reminded of her high

position and the responsibilities it entailed.158 She was constantly referred to as

duchessina, or little duchess, and was treated as such by her family and

caretakers.159

After considering several marriage alliances for Catherine, Pope Clement

VII, a second cousin of Catherine's who claimed publicly to be her uncle, settled

on a match within the royal family of France, the Valois, who had been in power

since 1328.160 Clement and Francis I, king of France, met in Nice at the city of

154 Watson, 9.

155 Watson, 9.

156 Watson, 15-17.

157 Watson, 18.

158 Watson, 18.

159 Watson, 31.

160 “Valois Dynasty,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed February 26th, 2014,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/622379/Valois-Dynasty.

44

Marseilles in 1533 to discuss a potential marriage alliance.161 Initial discussions of

a match between the Medicis and the Valois had begun as early as 1524; it was

not until this latest meeting, however, that it was determined that Catherine would

marry Henry, the second son of Francis.162 Catherine was not a princess, but the

match between her and Henry was attractive for many reasons. Catherine's

relation to Clement VII and the political ally it provided was the most crucial

element of the match, which was taking place at a time when political turmoil,

particularly between Italy, France and the Holy Roman Empire, was frequent

throughout Europe.163

Marriage to Henry

The marriage between Catherine and Henry was performed by none other

than Pope Clement VII at the Marseilles Cathedral on October 28th, 1533.164 Such

a momentous occasion should have been followed by positive events for

Catherine, but it was not. Even after the wedding, it did not seem that Catherine

was safe in France.165 Popular opinion dictated that her marriage to Henry was a

mésalliance to the French, meaning that it offered them no benefit. Many

courtiers justified this belief through Catherine's supposed inferiority, given that

her family was not from royal, but rather bourgeois, origins.166 Though they had


1963), 29.

162 Héritier, 30.

163 Héritier, 29.

164 Williamson, 32.


Press, 2008), 250.

166 Knecht, Renaissance, 250.

45

risen far, the Medicis were not accepted by France as a part of any European

nobility due to the continued stigmatization of Italy's elevated merchant class.167

This opinion was present throughout the French court; even little Mary Stuart,

eventual wife of Francis II and Queen Consort of France, once spoke of Catherine

as a “'merchant's daughter.'”168 Pope Clement had recently died, a short eleven

months after the wedding, and the alliance between France and Italy died with

him. Due to the combination of these factors, Catherine's role in France had thus

become one of little importance.169

Catherine could not shake her bourgeois stigma, and the nobility in France

were not yet willing to accept her as their equal.170 The inherent difficulty faced

by the Medici family as a recent addition to the European nobility is addressed in

a passage of The Prince, a political treatise written by Niccolò Machiavelli that

was originally intended for Catherine's father, Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici.171 In

one section of his treatise, Machiavelli provides insight into reasons why the

bourgeoisie, and even their descendants, were stigmatized. He wrote: “Those who

by good fortune only rise from mere private station to the dignity of princes have

but little trouble in achieving that elevation, for they fly there as it were on wings;

but their difficulties begin after they have been placed in that position.”172 These

167 Héritier, 67.




169 Héritier, 35.

170 Héritier, 35.

171 Vincent Barnett, “Niccolo Machiavelli: the Cunning Critic of Political Reason,” History

Review (2006), accessed February 26th, 2014, http://www.historytoday.com/vincent-

barnett/niccolo-machiavelli-%E2%80%93-cunning-critic-political-reason.

172 The Prince, 24.

46

difficulties began for Catherine upon her arrival in France, and would plague her

throughout the entirety of her marriage to Henry. Her secondary status was

continually emphasized by Henry's constant attention to his mistress, Diane de

Poitiers.

Catherine combated her reputation as a mésalliance by remaining quiet

and obedient at the French court. Her new task was to ensure that she remained in

the royal family's good graces, lest she be seen as a burden and sent back to Italy.

Catherine's submissiveness ensured her popularity among the French royal family,

assuring her continued place as Henry's wife and member of the French court.173

She understood that it was essential to maintain an uncontroversial presence at

court while also fulfilling her duties as wife to Henry. According to Jean Héritier,

Catherine “understood immediately that she mattered less than nothing and in

consequence [was] self-effacing and submissive. It is thus entirely to her own

credit to have entered the House of France.”174 While attempting to secure her

place at court, Catherine had to navigate a tricky route. While seeking to maintain

the favour of the royal family, she also sought to ensure she not draw too much

attention to herself, a skill she had developed out of necessity during her youth in

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

intruder.176

Though Catherine successfully avoided becoming a burden to the royal

court of France, she was merely biding her time, as she had not yet accomplished

173 Héritier, 35.

174 Héritier, 35.

175 Héritier, 35.

176 Héritier, 35.

47

the important task of winning over her husband. Due to the potential status of her

marriage as a mésalliance, this was of huge concern to her. The marriage legally

made him the person with whom she was closest in France, yet Henry was the one

person whom Catherine could not win over with her wit, or her charm, or even

her submissiveness.177 She seemed to be of little importance to him, as he

favoured his mistress, Diane de Poitiers, above her.178 Diane de Poitiers was able

to exert extensive influence over Henry, as she had been in his life since he was

but eleven years old, when Francis I had asked her to mentor him as a sort of

mother figure.179

Despite their seventeen-year age gap, Henry quickly fell in love with the

older Diane, and had little regard for Catherine as a result.180 As argued by Hugh

Ross Williamson, Diane and Henry shared “a devoted love which, despite the

disparity of their ages, lasted for twenty-two years and ensured that when Henry

became king it was not Catherine de' Medici but Diane de Poitiers, the uncrowned

queen, who dictated France's policy.”181 Instead of concerning herself with her

husband and his mistress, Catherine established her influence in small ways at the

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

As a favourite of Francis I, Catherine was invited to join his Petite bande,

a group of women with whom he rode and discussed various topics of interest.183

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


178 Williamson, 38.

179 Williamson, 38.

180 Williamson, 38.

181 Williamson, 38.


183 Watson, 74.

48

in turn held places of great prominence at court.184 In contrast from the other

ladies who were chosen due to their great beauty, Francis invited Catherine to join

his riding party because of the intellectually stimulating company she provided.185

She soon rose among the most important of these ladies, and was the first woman

at the French court to ride independently, a practice which was revolutionary at

the time.186 All of these components came together to ensure the growth of

Catherine's security at the French court.

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

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

France, they did not both hold official power. The difference of power between

the positions of king and queen is evident in the documentation of King Henry's

arrival to Paris on June 16th, 1547. While the king was accompanied by numerous

attendants and rode into the city, the queen is featured much further down the list,

rather than riding alongside him, cementing her role as consort rather than

partner.187 In addition, the coronations of the kings and queens were held in

separate buildings. Kings of France were crowned at Notre-Dame, while their

queens were crowned at the abbey of Saint-Denis.188 At this point, the Reims

Cathedral at Notre-Dame had become the most important religious site in France,

while the abbey of Saint-Denis was of lesser importance, further emphasizing the

queen's secondary status.189

184 Watson, 74.

185 Watson, 74.

186 Watson, 74.

187 I.D. MacFarlane, The Entry of Henry II Into into Paris: 16 June 1549 (Binghamton: Centre

for Medieval & Early Renaissance Studies, 1982).

188 MacFarlane.

189 MacFarlane.

49

The symbolism of the respective processions also served to signal a

difference in status between the king and his queen. En route to his own

coronation, Henry II passed Saint-Denis, which was situated far enough from the

centre of the city that it was among the first buildings passed during the

processional. In a documentation of his route into the city, Henry “entered Paris,

the capital of his kingdom, by the portal of Saint-Denis, and travelled by the road

... leading to the church of Notre-Dame.”190 It is significant that the coronations of

queens in France occurred away from the city's centre, indicating that they were

not as significant as that of the king. The coronations also took place two days

apart; Henry was crowned King of France June 16th, and Catherine Queen on June

18th.191 As the king and ruler of France, Henry, his retinue and his attendants were

all clothed in fabrics trimmed with gold, while the Queen, serving merely as

consort, was trimmed in silver along with her attendants.192

After the coronation ceremonies, Henry and Catherine settled into their

respective positions of power. In addition to the limited power held by Queen

Consorts of France during this period, there were several limitations in place

which impeded her power. The first such limitation was Diane de Poitiers, Henry's

longstanding mistress, who, newly created Duchesse de Valentinois by Henry, was

more influential than ever.193 The second limitation presented itself through the

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

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

190 MacFarlane.

191 MacFarlane.

192 MacFarlane.

193 Williamson, 61.

50

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

Catherine's constraints, which was her inability to bear children for the first ten

years of their marriage. On the 19th of January 1544, Catherine finally

accomplished what had evaded her for so long, due to Henry's unwavering

attention for Diane, giving birth to her first child, Francis II.195

The nature of Catherine's devotion to her children has been subject to

much historical debate. Many historians have prescribed to the historiographical

myth that Catherine manipulated her children to ensure her own success. Quite to

the contrary, as emphasized by Paul Van Dyke, Catherine was a doting mother

who protected her children from being objectified by the factions of the French

court.196 The intimate relationship she shared with her children is documented in a

letter she wrote in February of 1544, addressed to her cousin Cosimo I de' Medici,

Duke of Tuscany. In the letter, Catherine wrote: “Estant asseuree que cest lun des

plus grans plaisirs que ayez eu de longtemps que de lavoir sceu correspondant a

celluy que jay toujours eu de votre exaltation et grandeur et de tous ceulx de notre

maison.”197 Here, Catherine is joyful at the honour brought to her and her family

by the birth of her first child. This occasion was momentous not only for her but

for France, as the King and Queen now had an heir to the throne.

194 Williamson, 61.

195 Williamson, 49.

196 Van Dyke, vol i, 9.

197 Translation: “It is certain that this is one of the greatest pleasures had in a long time by this

correspondent as is your continued exaltation and greatness and from everyone in our house.”

C. Charles Casati, ed., “Catherine de Médicis, ” Lettres royaux et lettres missives inédites

(Paris: Librairie académique, 1877), 64, accessed March 23rd, 2014,

http://ia700304.us.archive.org/3/items/lettresroyauxet00casauoft/lettresroyauxet00casauoft.pdf.

51

The initial years of their marriage were marked by an imbalance of power,

but Henry eventually learned to trust Catherine. His growing trust is evident

through his decision to name her as temporary head of state during his absences.

Catherine had her first experience as a political figurehead in France during the

first of Henry's absences from court. On February 12, 1552, Henry announced to

the Paris Parlement, France's chief judicial body comprised of appointed

judges,198 that Catherine would rule as regent and head of the governing council

while he was away at war, and that they were all to obey her as they did Henry.199

At this point, Catherine was technically ruling as regent for her son Francis, yet

she held little to no power.200 This regency gave Catherine very little experience

exercising political authority, as its main purpose was to lend more focus to the

future role of Francis as King of France.201 Catherine held minimal control over

the affairs of the country while the council she presided over exercised real

authority.202 The council members included Marshal Saint-André, a favourite of

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

Coutances.203 Catherine ruled strictly as an adjunct and functioned as a mere

symbol of authority.204

198 “Parlement,” The Free Dictionary, accessed February 26th, 2014,

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Parlement+of+Paris.

199 Katherine Crawford, “Catherine de Medicis and the Performance of Political Motherhood,”

The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 31, no. 3 (2000): 651, accessed February 26th, 2014,


200 Crawford, 651.

201 Crawford, 652.

202 Crawford, 652.

203 Crawford, 652.

204 Crawford, 652.

52

Henry soon grew to trust his wife even more, and appointed her regent a

second time. Beginning August 15th, 1553, Catherine ruled as Francis' regent

while Henry went to war with the Hapsburgs.205 During this regency, Catherine

held a stronger position of power, as indicated by the members of her council,

which this time included the keeper of the seals who responded directly to

Catherine.206 Her responsibilities now included “interviewing ambassadors,

writing to the Parlement at Paris, advising municipalities,” and other royal duties,

as well as overseeing her children.207 This second regency acted as her

apprenticeship to power, teaching her how to establish legitimate control while

continuing to break the barriers which sought to inhibit her success, such as

Henry's relationship with Diane and her place as Queen Consort. Catherine

worked with what she had to establish herself, using her role as mother to acquire

political influence. Her role as Queen Mother prevailed, even during her term as

Queen Regent, as her main route to success.

Death of Henry

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

Henry's death meant more challenges for Catherine. After his death, she faced a

crossroads between her current and future roles within the royal schema of

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

205 Crawford, 652.

206 Crawford, 652.

207 Van Dyke, vol. 1, 69.

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

Press, 1988), 252.

53

crowned King at the tender age of 15. Because of his youth and supposed frailty,

the new king was easily manipulated by court factions.209 Catherine had little to

no political influence over her son during this period mainly due to the powerful

influence of the Guise family, who held the king firmly within its grasp.210 This

faction included two of the king's main advisors: the cardinal of Lorraine and the

duke of Guise, who were related to the king's wife, Mary Stuart, through her

mother Mary of Guise.211 These powerful uncles of the royal couple bore no

relation to Catherine, and shut her out from the political arena they dominated.

Despite her lack of political influence during this period, Catherine forged

her image in other ways. As a woman in France, a country ruled by outdated Salic

Law, Catherine knew that she would never be able to establish an independent

rule. She therefore took advantage of a special set of circumstances which

provided her with a solid platform upon which she could craft her image. The first

of these circumstances was the death of her husband, Henry II. She looked to

form a permanent link between herself and her dead husband and, taking steps to

ensure she remain his wife in the eyes of the public, used her status as a widow to

create a carefully sculpted appearance of devotion to her late husband.212

Catherine far exceeded the traditional expectations of a dowager queen

and widow, which were to remain in the mourning chamber for 40 days, wear

mourning clothes for two years, and, as subtly encouraged, not to remarry. In true

Machiavellian fashion, Catherine successfully manipulated these traditional

209 Crawford, 653.

210 Crawford, 253.

211 Crawford, 253.

212 Crawford, 644.

54

French mourning customs and used them as political imagery to establish herself

as Henry's devoted widow. Catherine mourned publicly rather than privately,

emphasized her everlasting love for her deceased spouse, and continued to wear

black for the rest of her life.213 All of this served as a constant reminder and

statement of her loyalty to Henry, and was among the many contributors to her

success as Queen Regent and Queen Mother. As Catherine continued to

emphasize her role as wife and widow, the second special circumstance which led

to her political power unfolded: the death of King Francis II, and the resulting

coronation of her second son Charles IX which led to her establishment as Queen

Regent. In addition to the political imagery which tied her to Henry, Catherine

worked to cement her role as Charles' mother in an effort to legitimize her claim

to the regency.

The image that Catherine cultivated as Queen Mother was strong because

of her very real skills at being a parent. After the death of Francis II, Catherine

moved quickly to protect Charles IX from the manipulation of the court factions.

She knew that the factions would seek to dominate Charles the moment Francis

died, and so spent the night in Charles' room after Francis' death to prevent any

domination.214 According to Paul Van Dyke, “the day after his brother's death, the

young King summoned the princes of the blood, the Cardinals, the Dukes, the

chief officers of state, and the members of the privy council to his room and

announced that he desired them to do what his mother would command them,

213 Crawford, 657.




55

with the advice of the council.”215 This was the beginning of Catherine's bid for

the regency.

Regency

It soon became of primary importance to establish a regency in Charles'

name as he was too young to rule independently. As stated by historian Katherine

Crawford, tradition dictated that the regent be chosen by the king's body of

advisors, all of whom were male.216 Catherine paid no mind to this practice and

chose to construct her own platform for the regency, based on her position as

Queen Mother.217 It was surprisingly easy for her to achieve this, as all potential

male candidates for the regency were caught in political turmoil. As the first

Prince of the Blood, Antoine of Navarre was first among the potential candidates

for the regency and thus Catherine's main competition. He was, however, in no

place to take on such a role, as he had recently become politically discredited due

to his brother, Louis I de Bourbon, prince of Condé,218 who was awaiting

execution at the time of Francis' death.219 Instead of pursuing the position himself,

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

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

1560 and was named as the head of the government, a decision which was

finalized December 20th of the same year.220

215 Van Dyke, 181.

216 Crawford, 653.

217 Crawford, 653.

218 “Anthony of Bourbon,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed January 26th, 2014,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27404/Anthony-Of-Bourbon.

219 Crawford, 660.

220 Crawford, 660-662.

56

Catherine's bid for power was successful yet came as a shock to many of

her contemporaries, who were accustomed to her quiet and obedient character

throughout her marriage to Henry II. Van Dyke states that “the dominant trait to

her character, the will to power – had found circumstances so unfavourable to its

development and had been kept so resolutely in the background, that its very

existence was scarcely suspected even by those who stood nearest her.”221

Catherine's campaign, however, supported by the imagery proclaiming her as

devoted widow and mother, successfully dispelled any doubts of her lack of

will.222 Despite the ease with which she succeeded to the position of Queen

Regent, Catherine did face opposition. Navarre had promised to support her claim

to the regency, yet was in negotiations with the Estates General, who believed that

a woman had no place serving as regent. During their election of 1561, the Estates

declared on behalf of Navarre that he did not have the right to refuse his

appointment as regent; this was done in an attempt to discredit Catherine and

place Navarre on the throne.223 This movement was resolved when Navarre and

his recently exonerated brother Condé signed an agreement with Catherine in

which they declared their loyalty and renounced all claims to the regency.224

Catherine also faced stiff competition from the Guise faction, which had

been expected. Since their influence had increased during the short reign of

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

221 Van Dyke, vol. 1, 180.

222 Van Dyke, vol. 1, 180.

223 Crawford, 665-666.

224 Crawford, 665-666.

57

in France by assuming the regency.225 A history of conflict between mothers and

uncles in the matter of regency existed in France, which had reached a peak

during the reign of Charles VI at the end of the 14th century.226 However strong

their platforms were, the opposition did not succeed in removing Catherine from

the regency. Though she was the first woman to have promoted herself as regent,

Catherine was not the first royal mother to rule in the name of her son. There was

a distinctive increase of female political power during the reign of Francis I, who,

claiming to trust no one else with the duty, appointed his mother Louise of Savoy

as administrator of the realm on two occasions.227 Her role as temporary head of

state was justified through the common held belief that the maternal love she bore

for her son enabled her to rule more effectively.228 As a mother, it was also

thought that Louise would rule effectively as a regent to ensure the good name

and image of her son remained intact.229

This example of female authority certainly served as inspiration for

Catherine, who used motherhood as the main justification for her place in French

politics. Catherine's years of hard work spent crafting an image of herself as a

leading woman of France had finally paid off. Crawford argues that “with no

adult monarch to designate the size and shape of the queen mother's access,

Catherine was free to utilize a carefully accumulated reservoir of positive

sentiment about her capacity as a good woman, widow, and mother to construct

225 Van Dyke, vol. 1, 180.

226 Crawford, 646.

227 Crawford, 649.

228 Crawford, 650.

229 Crawford, 650.

58

her political claim.”230 Catherine had developed what Crawford refers to as a fund

of good behaviour, a concept entailing the repeated assertion of her impeccable

status of devoted wife, grieving widow and protective mother, all of which

received even more praise considering her husband's devotion to his mistress,

Diane de Poitiers.231 Catherine adhered to and even excelled at these expectations

to ensure the security of her place among the political schema of France.232

As regent, Catherine sought to remain securely on the throne and extend

her power. Her position as mother of France was accepted, as motherhood was a

traditional female role; people were thus largely accepting of the power she

exerted.233 As previously mentioned, emphasis was placed on her status as wife

and widow, but was concentrated most strongly on her role as a mother.

Catherine's motherhood allowed her to play a larger role in politics, especially in

matters concerning her children, including the king.234 As Louise of Savoy had

done before her, Catherine justified her role as regent through her affection for her

son.235 This marked the first occasion that the justification of maternal love as a

source of power was used by a woman, and by the regent herself.236

Catherine's confidence as regent is evident through the letters she wrote, as

exemplified by her letter to a Monsieur de Villefrancon, lieutenant-general of the

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

230 Crawford, 653.

231 Crawford, 655.

232 Crawford, 644.

233 Crawford, 657.

234 Crawford, 657.

235 Crawford, 658.

236 Crawford, 658.

237 University of Toronto Libraries, “Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, publiées par Hector de La

Ferrière” (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1880), 23, accessed January 26th, 2014,

59

days after her official appointment as Queen Regent. In this letter, Catherine

writes with extreme confidence, drawing legitimacy from her position as the

mother of the princes of France. She wrote:

Graces à Nostre Seigneur, il n'a pas laissé ce royaume dépourvu

de legitimes et vrayz successeurs, dont je suis la mere, qui, pour

le bien d'icelluy, prandray en main la charge du devoir qu'il

fauldra rendre en l'administration qui y sera necessaire, par l'advis

et bon conseil des princes et grands personnaiges dont il n'y a pas

faulte.238

Catherine certainly included herself among those she referenced as official figures

possessing no fault, and cemented her status as her son’s main adviser. This letter

was one of many ways Catherine would begin to officially recognize her own

power. She would next try her hand at balancing the unstable court factions that

existed within France.

It was from her new position as Queen Regent that Catherine began

addressing religious issues in France. Her key motive in remaining neutral on the

subject of religion was to keep the various court factions, among which the Guise

were the most powerful, at bay, which would effectively secure and increase her

own power. The Guise faction was notoriously Catholic, and had supported the

vicious persecution of Huguenots during the reign of Henry II while key members

of another faction at the French court, the Bourbon family, most notably Condé,

were Huguenots.239 The Montmorency family, among whom was included the

http://archive.org/stream/lettresdecatheri10cathuoft#page/n5/mode/2up.

238 Translation: 'Thanks be to God, he has not left this kingdom deprived of legitimate and true

successors, of whom I am the mother, and who...will take the necessary work and

administration he must complete in hand, through the advice and good council of princes and

official figures who possess no fault,' “Lettres de Catherine de Médicis,” 23-24.

239 Gray, 102.

60

prestigious Anne, Constable of France, had ties to both faiths, but were largely

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

Catherine could not afford to ostracize any of them. Simultaneously, Catherine

had to ensure that none of the factions was able to maintain too much power. The

tensions that existed between these conflicting factions acted as inspiration for

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

Huguenots in France.

One of Catherine de' Medici's first significant endeavours on the subject of

religious worship in France was the Colloquy of Poissy, held from September 9th

until October 14th, 1561.241 Catherine's goal for the colloquy, named as such

because church assemblies had been forbidden by the pope, was to achieve the

permanent unification of Catholics and Huguenots in France through the creation

of a legislative body called the National Council of the French Church.242 What

Catherine had not anticipated, however, was the complete failure of the colloquy,

which ironically served to increase the divide between the divergent religious

groups. Catherine underestimated the international significance of the religious

conflict,243 as she herself did not see any major distinction between the two faiths.

Catherine viewed them instead as different interpretations of the same

fundamental concept.244 As stated by Héritier, “Catherine de Medici was thinking

of her policy of compassion; the theologians were only concerned with the true

240 Gray, 102.

241 Gray, 102.

242 Gray, 102.

243 Gray, 103.

244 Héritier, 165.

61

faith.”245 Catherine also did not foresee the possibility that the Colloquy's

conclusions, had the two factions united as the National Council of the French

Church, could be overturned. Because the colloquy had not been arranged through

either the Huguenot leaders in Geneva or the Papacy in Rome, any conciliation

between the two groups would have been instantly reversed.246

Queen Mother

During her regency and continuing after it, Catherine de' Medici created a

new definition of a queen mother, using existing political tensions to create and

maintain her influence.247 Catherine presented herself as not only the Queen

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

Colloquy of Poissy, Catherine consistently sought to bring the court factions to

terms with each other, often treating them as bickering children. Crawford states

that Catherine “undid, at least partially, the incapacity ascribed to women as

political actors in the French monarchy. She had to do this by basing her

entitlement on fulfilling accepted feminine roles and then augmenting their

content.”248 By exercising authority as the mother of both the King and of France,

Catherine made sure to not overstep traditional feminine roles, but rather to take

advantage of them.

Having little to no power while her husband ruled France, Catherine's

new-found status as the mother figure of France gave her access to more political

245 Héritier, 172.

246 Gray, 103.

247 Crawford, 644.

248 Crawford, 672.

62

influence than she had ever held as Queen Consort. She frequently wrote letters

on behalf of her son, emphasizing her relationship with him and using her position

as his mother to exert influence, as exemplified through a letter she wrote to the

supposed Duke and master of Gennes on the 31st of August, 1572.249 As she writes

to discuss the promotion of a knight, she specifies that she is merely reminding

the Duke of Gennes of a recommendation already made by the king.250 She then

goes on, however, to say how the completion of the matter would please her.

“Vous le veuillez recognoistre comme chevalier ayme et favorise de moi et

comme bon citoyen de votre republique. Vous asseurant que tout ce que vous

ferez en sa faveur me sera grandement agreable.”251 It is her own favour and not

the king's that Catherine is emphasizing in this letter. Catherine's statement that

this would please her also infers that, should the duke choose not to follow her

reminder of the king's recommendation, she would be disappointed.

Even after the regency had ended, Catherine was able to maintain control

over affairs of the state. As the kings of France during this period were plagued

with weaknesses of the mind and body, Catherine was able and often expected to

exert her influence as a mother over the court and council, who often decided and

dictated policy without the king.252 Unfortunately for Catherine, she was not the

only one who sought to dominate both the king and his council. The Guise family,

249 C. Charles Casati, ed., Lettres royaux et lettres missives inédites (Paris: Didier et C., Libraires-

Editeurs, 1877), 28-29, accessed January 27th, 2014,


250 Lettres royaux, 28-29.

251 Translation: “You will recognize that as a cherished and favourite knight of mine, as well as a

good and loyal citizen ... everything you do in his favour would be greatly pleasing to me.”

Lettres royaux, 28-29.

252 Martyn Rady, France: Renaissance, Religion and Recovery, 1494-1610 (London: Hodder &

Stoughton Ltd., 1988), 65.

63

whose overwhelming public support had made them the biggest and the most

threatening court faction to the Valois family, also sought to dominate the royal

council, and would pose a problem for Catherine for the duration of her life.253

Catherine's reign as Queen Consort, Queen Regent and Queen Mother was

subject to a specific pattern of events relating specifically to her hatred for the

Guise faction, which consisted of a search for conciliation, leading to Guise

hostility and war, followed once more by the quest for a settlement.254 While the

Guise were never able to dominate Charles as they had Francis II before him, they

were able to secure their political power through the means of massive public

support, which came largely from the fervent Catholics of Paris.255 As Queen

Mother, Catherine sought to solidify her power and that of her son through the

control of the various factions that existed at court. These factions were divided

both religiously and by family, and presented a very real problem to the throne.

Catherine therefore approached this situation as she had approached her claim to

the regency. By asserting herself as matriarch, Catherine viewed the disputing

factions as disobedient children and sought to make them behave.

Catherine's attempts to reconcile French court factions have, however,

been heavily criticized by 20th century historians such as Sir John Ernest Neale.

As an expert on the age of religious wars in Europe, Neale argued that Catherine

knew nothing of statecraft. “Her vitality was boundless: she was always ready,

with tireless energy, to tackle every difficulty that arose. But she lacked any grasp

253 Rady, 65.

254 Rady, 65.

255 Richard S. Dunn, The Age of Religious Wars, 1559-1715 (New York: W.W. Norton &


64

of principles, and was apt to see political problems in terms of a palace intrigue

which could be solved by getting folk together and making them shake hands.”256

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

'folk' and 'shaking hands.' Contrary to Neale's argument, the evidence

demonstrates that Catherine's decision to navigate the middle ground was entirely

intentional; she made these decisions because all other options would result in

war.257 She interpreted these problems as palace intrigue because they began as

such, as the key players involved in these problems often lived at court.258 This

movement was not at a grassroots level. The power players were the court

factions, whose actions inspired the general public of Paris and the rest of

France.259

As a master of manipulation, Catherine de' Medici used traditional

imagery and accepted customs to establish herself as the matriarch of France.

Catherine ensured her place within France's political arena by linking herself as

the wife, widow and mother of the Valois kings. It was not until after her marriage

ended with Henry's death that she was able to secure true political power. Several

factors inhibited her from finding true power as Queen Consort, such as Henry's

steadfast loyalty to his mistress Diane de Poitiers and the lack of attention

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

256 Sir John Neale, “The Failure of Catherine de Medici,” J.H.M. Salmon, ed., The French Wars

of Religion (Lexington: D.C. and Heath Company, 1967), 37.

257 Héritier, 186.

258 Héritier, 186.



65

women from ruling in their own name. Popular factions at court, dominated most

strongly by the Catholic Guises, also sought to usurp Catherine's claim to power.

Taking advantage of a special set of circumstances which included the

death of her husband and the end of her role as Queen Consort, as well as the

death of her first son Francis II, Catherine took advantage of her new role as

Queen Mother and secured herself the regency of her second son, the newly

crowned King Charles IX. She did this in a bid to ensure that her son remain

untouchable to the warring court factions. Her use of imagery which emphasized

her role as a mother, wife and matriarch of France resulted in the success of her

regency, which lasted for three years, from 1560 until 1563. As a woman,

Catherine used motherhood to establish a new route to power that was accepted

by the King's royal council and the rest of France, and it was thus that her power

continued after her regency ended.

66

Chapter 3

Crafting an Approach to Religious Conflict in France

67

This chapter will analyze how Catherine de' Medici approached religious

and political conflicts in France. As a ruler, Catherine made calculated political

decisions in an effort to maintain support of both the Huguenots and Catholics,

yet kept her personal beliefs aside. Historians have been most cruel in their

analysis of Catherine with respect to her position on the complex religious issues

in France. There are many reasons which both explain and validate the approach

she chose. Catherine's decision to adopt a conciliatory attitude towards the

Huguenots was threefold: firstly, to secure the throne for her son Charles IX;

secondly, to ensure control over the warring factions at court; and thirdly, to avoid

the explosion of religious tensions in Paris and greater France. As both the Queen

Mother and matriarchal figurehead of France, Catherine's strategies to establish

religious unity were similar to her methods of controlling factional disagreements

at court. They were both based on conciliatory policies which ensured the security

of her power, and that of her son.

With Machiavelli as her guide, Catherine sought to establish herself as a

supreme leader in France. As The Prince dictates, “a prince should seem to be

merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and upright, and should even be so in

reality; but he should have his mind so trained that, when occasion requires it, he

may know how to change to the opposite.”260 Catherine's approach to the

Huguenot-Catholic conflict comprised nearly all of these components. Her real

skill, however, lay within the last of Machiavelli's recommendations; she was able

to successfully manipulate key figures at court, all in the pursuit of maintaining

260 Niccolò Machiavelli, Christian E. Detmold, trans., The Prince (New York: Washington Square

Press, Inc, 1968), 77.

68

her own power, and through that the power of her son. Catherine circumvented

her nobles by playing them off of one another in an effort to secure the greater

safety of France, which was threatened by the individual ambitions of these

powerful families. Due to the overwhelming influence noble families such as the

Guise exerted, Catherine's primary objective was to control them, and through

them, quell the rest of France. Before Catherine could exercise independent

authority and legislate her policies, the Huguenots faced prosecution under her

husband, Henry II.

The Persecution of Huguenots under Henry II

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

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

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

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

Heretics were killed in public executions during this period, with those

condemned often burned at the stake.263 This especially brutal form of execution

was used in an effort to dissuade more people from converting.264 According to

author Frederic Baumgartner, the continued unity of France was believed by

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

261 Kathleen A. Parrow, “Neither Treason nor Heresy: Use of Defence Arguments to Avoid

Forfeiture during the French Wars of Religion,” The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 22, no. 4

(Winter 1991): 709, accessed February 10th, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2542373.

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

Press, 1988), 124.

263 Barbara Diefendorf, “Prelude to a Massacre: Popular Unrest in Paris, 1557-1572," The

American Historical Review vol. 90, no. 5 (December 1985): 1073, accessed February 1st,

2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1859659.

264 Diefendorf, 1073.

69

church. In their eyes, it became therefore impossible to accept the Huguenots.265

As a staunch Catholic, Henry was deeply offended by the existence of what he

perceived as heresy in his country. Though his contempt for Protestantism was

evident, Henry could not rid France of its presence. Huguenots had existed in

France for over twenty years by the time Henry became king in 1547.266 Henry's

commitment to ridding France of this heresy did not spare any Huguenot,

regardless of their class. All French people, regardless of social status, could face

execution for their faith. Anne Du Bourg, who was then president of the

Parlement of Paris, stood up in front of the king and announced his Protestant

beliefs during a meeting of the Parlement, and was promptly arrested. After facing

trial, he was found guilty and executed December 23rd, 1559.267

Historian Barbara Diefendorf argues that Henry's stance against the

Huguenots has become widely accepted among historians as a fact, stating that “it

is well known that Henry II... intended to return home and take up the battle

against heresy and that, on his death, the Guises used their considerable influence

at court to intensify this fight.”268 It was the Guises' position as forerunners in the

battle against French Protestantism along with Henry's dedication to eradicate the

faith which prevented Catherine from having any influence over religious matters

in France while Queen Consort. Her role as observer, however, undoubtedly

influenced her choice to employ conciliation rather than persecution; she



267 “Beza at Geneva,” History of the Christian Church, accessed February 14th, 2014,

http://www.bible.ca/history/philip-schaff/8_ch19.htm.

268 Diefendorf, 1072-1073.

70

recognized the growing political organization of the Huguenot party as a potential

source of power for herself, and therefore moved to embrace the growing

presence of this new faith, issuing several conciliatory edicts which would grant

Huguenots privileges previously unheard of in France.

Early Conciliatory Gestures

Moving away from Henry's vicious persecution, Catherine attempted to

create tolerance in France for Huguenots. In her new seat of power, Catherine

took measures to protect them from the threat of inquisition, a strategy which the

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

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

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

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

Amboise on March 19th, 1560.270 The main purpose of this edict was to

distinguish sedition from heresy,271 and to prevent an inquisition in France.272 By

establishing this difference, Catherine ensured that the Huguenots were

temporarily exempt from religious persecution. Issued in May of 1560, the edict

of Romorantin allowed the Huguenots "to escape the Inquisition for which the

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

269 Diefendorf, 1072-1073.

270 “Conspiracy of Amboise,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed March 7th, 2014,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/18961/Conspiracy-of-Amboise.

271 Philippe Erlanger, Patrick O'Brian, trans., St. Bartholomew's Night: The Massacre of Saint-

Bartholomew (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1962), 31.

272 “The French Wars of Religion – Chronology,” accessed March 7th, 2014, http://clc-library-

org-docs.angelfire.com/chron.html.

273 Erlanger, 31.

71

Catherine had not yet established herself as Queen Regent and the Guise family

still held the king firmly within their grasp, so her influence was limited at this

time. This edict therefore does not represent the full breadth of her conciliatory

approach to the conflict. It does serve, however, as an early example of her

attitude toward the conflict. Until she became regent, Catherine was not readily

able to enact conciliatory legislation.274

Catherine soon found a powerful ally in Michel de L'Hospital, who was

chancellor of France from 1560-1568 and practiced a similar form of toleration

towards Huguenots as the Queen Mother.275 It was he who aided Catherine in

passing the Edict of Romorantin, and who presented it to Parlement in May

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

L'Hospital faced fierce opposition from the Parlement due to the limitations

placed by the edict on the judicial body involving cases of heresy.277 As stated by

historian and author Nancy Lyman Roelker, this edict was the first step in creating

a more secular Parlement, with new restrictions in place to encourage decisions

based on actions, rather than beliefs.278 Though L'Hospital successfully lobbied to

have the edict issued, it was never enforced. This lack of enforcement has been

deemed by Roelker as a gesture of conciliation, as relations between Parlement

and the crown had become strained due to L'Hospital's repeated lobbying.279

274 Erlanger, 31.

275 “Michel de L'Hospital,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed March 23rd, 2014,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338507/Michel-de-LHospital.

276 Nancy Lyman Roelker, One King, One Faith: The Parlement of Paris and the Religious

Reformations of the Sixteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 241.

277 Roelker, 241.

278 Roelker, 241.

279 Roelker, 241.

72

Catherine herself met with extreme unrest upon beginning her rule as

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

Catholics and Huguenots, yet needed time to determine how to solve the

overwhelming discord.280 Her first task was to ensure the security of her son

Charles IX; Catherine quickly determined that her best chance at success was

through conciliatory policy.281 As Queen Regent, Catherine was finally able to

take a direct approach to religious conflict in France, and created her own

legislation as acting head of state. Her first official attempt at legislating the

conciliation of Catholics and Huguenots in France was the disastrous Colloquy de

Poissy, held during the autumn of 1561.282 With this colloquy, Catherine hoped to

create a National Council of the French Church, through a permanent unification

of the Catholic and Huguenot faiths.283 Instead, the two faiths became even more

polarized due to their fundamentally different theologies.284 Though it was a

failure, this colloquy demonstrated Catherine's growing confidence and readiness

to breach religious divides in France.

Catherine's next attempt at conciliation was the Edict of Saint-Germain,

issued by Chancellor Michel de L'Hospital in January of 1562.285 This edict

allowed Huguenots to worship in groups in the countryside, but forbade them

from worship and assembly inside towns or at night, whether in public or




House, 1981), 102.

283 Gray, 102.

284 Gray, 102.

285 Biancamaria Fontana, Montaigne's Politics: Authority and Governance in the Essais

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 67.

73

private.286 Like Romorantin had, this edict represented another step toward

secular governing in France, an ideal pressed by both Catherine and the

Chancellor.287 According to Héritier, Catherine “regarded freedom of conscience

as an immutable law, and gave the Protestants the necessary guarantees to uphold

it.”288 She certainly believed that Huguenots had a fundamental right to worship,

but leading Catholic figures, such as Francis, Duke of Guise, highly disagreed.

In the first section of the edict, the third paragraph specifically targeted the

safety of Huguenot worshippers. This edict commanded “tous juges, magistratz et

autres personnes, de quelque estat, qualité ou condition qu’ilz soient, que lorsque

ceulx de lad. religion nouvelle yront, viendront et s’assembleront hors desd. villes

pour le faict de leurd. Religion, ilz n’aient à les y, inquieter, molester ne leur

courir sus en quelque sorte ou maniere que ce soit,”289 promising swift

punishments to any who did.290 Catherine sought to create a safe environment

within which Huguenots could worship securely, and a larger environment in

which religious wars would cease. What she also created, however, was

resentment among the Catholics, and chief among them Francis, Duke of

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


Press, 2008), 248.

287 Fontana, 67.


1963), 296.

289 Translation: “All judges, magitrates, and other persons of various state, quality or condition,

are not to prevent, molest nor physically impede in any way members of the new Religion as

they are going, coming from or assembling outside of towns for the purpose of their religion.”

“Édit de Janvier,” I (3), The French Wars of Religion: Important Primary Texts, accessed

March 11th, 2014, http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_01.

290 “Édit de Janvier,” http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_01.

291 Francis Baumgartner, Radical Reactionaries: the political thought of the French Catholic

League (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1975), 16.

74

two religions could never coexist because of their fundamental differences.292 The

Catholics, headed by the Guise family, further believed that Catholicism was the

true religion of France, and the cornerstone of its identity as a country.293 As a true

Machiavellian, Catherine did not let her own private convictions dictate her

policies. Catherine promoted Huguenot tolerance as a balancing act: by

embracing the new faith, she revoked the Catholics' religious supremacy. By

doing so, Catherine ensured the increased stability of her role as Queen Regent.

The resentment which grew among Catholics within France after the Edict

of Saint-Germain was issued roused the Catholic factions at court. On April 4th,

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

Paris and sacked two prominent sites of Huguenot worship, and made bonfires

which burned the religious elements and furniture found in them.294 Hostilities of

this nature were common throughout France, and grew to target Huguenots

themselves.295 Approximately two months after the edict was issued, the Duke of

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

Duke, along with his brother Charles and son Henry, passed through the town on

his way home and happened upon an assembly of Huguenots in worship within

the legal bounds of the edict.297 The presence of the duke's family implies that the

act which would follow was not premeditated; however, his wilful ignorance of

the edict's conditions implied his guilt.298 According to Janet Glenn Gray, “once

292 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 16.


294 Diefendorf, 1077-1080.

295 Diefendorf, 1081-1082.

296 Gray, 104.

297 Gray, 104.

298 Gray, 104.

75

the action had begun, it would seem that a seasoned commander like the Duke

could have controlled his men more effectively had he really wanted the fighting

to cease.”299 His guilt was also implicit in his failure to control his troops, who he

had ordered to disperse the Huguenots, but who proceeded to massacre them. This

day would become known as the Massacre of Vassy, as seventy-four Huguenots

were slain.300

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

Huguenots, as small pockets of violence had become common between rival

bands by 1562.301 Gray contends that what made it distinct, however, was “the

involvement of the Duke of Guise, for this was the first time a factional leader had

crossed the narrow line between incitement to violence and actual

participation.”302 News of this massacre resounded throughout France, and was

the ultimate starting point for the first of eight civil wars in France, collectively

known as the French Wars of Religion, over which Catherine had little to no

control.303 In response to what they deemed a Catholic advance at Vassy, the

Huguenots were quick to rally, seizing the city of Orléans and appointing Condé

as both protector and defender of the Churches of France.304 Despite a united

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

Triumvirate, a three-part union consisting of the Duke of Guise, Constable Anne

de Montmorency, and the Marshal Saint-André, and their forces gained the upper

299 Gray, 104.

300 Gray, 104.

301 Rady, 71.

302 Rady, 71.

303 Rady, 71.

304 Rady, 71.

76

hand by March 1563, and a peace settlement was negotiated.305

The alliance of these three great men against the Huguenots was also a

manoeuvre against Catherine as a direct violation of her policy of conciliation.306

Though the war had begun partially because of Catherine's attempts at reconciling

the divergent religious parties, certain unexpected circumstances arose in 1562

which enabled Catherine to once again approach negotiations from a conciliatory

angle.307 In October, the King of Navarre was assassinated; two months later, at

the Battle of Dreux in December of 1562, Saint-André was killed and both

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

1563, the Duke of Guise was also assassinated.309 As a result of the weak court

factions, Catherine negotiated an end to the war.310

After guaranteeing the release of both Montmorency and Condé, Catherine

began discussing a peace settlement with them, which would become the Peace of

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

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

Edict of Saint-Germain, allowing nobles and their relatives to practice the new

religion in their own homes, but preventing non-noble Huguenots from doing the

same.312 The Huguenots were afforded a single building in selected towns to be

used as a place of worship.313 Contrary to the rage the Edict of Saint-Germain

305 Rady, 71.


307 Rady, 71.

308 Rady, 71.

309 Rady, 71.

310 Rady, 71.

311 Rady, 71.

312 Rady, 73.

313 “Édit d'Amboise,” II (2), The French Wars of Religion: Important Primary Texts, accessed

77

provoked among Catholics, this edict led the Huguenots to action, as they felt

cheated by this edict that eliminated many of their former rights to worship, such

as freedom of public assembly outside of towns.314 Catherine could not prevent

the inevitable return of factional feuding at court. As can be seen by her

revocation of certain Huguenot concessions, her policy was to control the impact

it made outside of court.315 It is likely that this decision may have been reached by

Catherine to increase the Huguenots' safety, as the locations designated for their

worship were extremely remote, ensuring the removal of Huguenots from

immediate threats posed by the fervently Catholic Paris. Regardless of Catherine's

efforts, conflict was again provoked between Catholics and Huguenots, leading to

a second civil war.316

Catherine wanted peace from both sides of the religious conflict.

Throughout the disputes, she fought to ensure that her son never be used as a

pawn by either side, and expressed indignation when he was treated as such.

When hostilities began on April 6, 1562, she and Charles were forcibly escorted

to Paris by the triumvirate and made to denounce the Huguenot leaders as

rebels.317 After this event, Catherine continued issuing peace initiatives, but

despite her efforts, these were denied by both sides, as they were each equally

consumed by the conflict.318 It is important to note her view of both parties as

March 11th, 2014, http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_02.

314 Rady, 73.

315 Rady, 74.

316 Rady, 74.

317 Rady, 71.

318 The conflict, here, is in reference to the multiple wars that made up the French Wars of

Religion.

Rady, 71.

78

potentially dangerous, illustrated through her repeated attempts at pacifying the

Catholics and her lack of support for Huguenot militancy. Catherine's impartiality

is further exemplified in her temporary resentment of the Huguenot cause

whenever it threatened her son. During the early morning of September 28th,

1563, she and Charles were alerted to a Huguenot army in pursuit of them, and

decided to flee to Paris to ensure their security.319 Though she successfully

avoided capture, this event made Catherine extremely upset. Calling it “the

greatest wickedness in the world,” she felt that the Huguenot actions threatened

not only to nullify all of her efforts to safely legalize their faith, but also to reverse

the temporary peace her edicts had induced in France.320

Tensions

Catherine's primary concern was the safety of her son; she was therefore

willing to recognize the legitimacy of each side of the conflict so long as it

ensured his safety. Catherine also acknowledged, however, that she possessed

very little control over the larger context of the religious conflict. Much of the

modern criticism surrounding Catherine's legacy pertains to her inability to end

the eight civil wars plaguing France during her reign. What must be understood,

however, is that these wars were largely out of her control. As has been

emphasized, the factions that existed at the French royal court during this period,

comprising mainly the Guise, Bourbon and Montmorency families, were divided

319 Knecht, 250.

320 Knecht, 250.

79

along social, political, and most importantly religious lines.321 Tensions existed

within France which lay beyond Catherine's control, consisting mainly of Catholic

support throughout France for institutions such as the triumvirate and the Catholic

League, as well as the mob of Paris.

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

It was also, however, used as an excuse for inciting conflict. Religion was

manipulated within both Huguenot and Catholic parties by individuals consumed

with political ambitions,322 and as a legitimating factor for conflict.323 Along with

achieving religious prominence, each party sought to establish political

domination within France, through which their prosperity would be ensured.324

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

Church, which was long-established, and through the monarch's traditional role as

eradicator of heresy.325 Traditionally, upon their coronation, a new king's first oath

was to swear to defend the Church, and uphold its sanctions.326 As acting

sovereign, Catherine was upheld to the same expectations by the Catholics.

There were two sides to the religious issue. Both sides manipulated faith to

their own political interests, yet believed simultaneously that their actions were

sanctioned by God. According to Kathleen Parrow, “divine law gave the pious a

right to expel the impious and to retain possession of territory they captured, if

they captured it without sinful intention."327 The issue here, then, was that each



323 Gray, 101.




327 Parrow, 707-708.

80

side believed their faith was the true religion of France and denounced the other

as a heresy. In addition to this, divine law was seen as justifying incidents of

violence against the Huguenots, which only grew in frequency in the years

leading up to the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre.328 Religion was, however,

merely one factor inhibiting Catherine's total control over France during her reign

as Queen Regent. The hostile factions at court, who had become divided not only

along political but religious beliefs, were becoming increasingly dangerous. These

factions consisted mainly of the Guise and the Montmorency, who represented the

ultra-Catholics, and the Bourbons, members of whom, such as Prince Louis de

Condé, supported the Huguenot cause.

The ability of these factions to influence popular opinion throughout

France was remarkable, and can be seen most evidently through the influence

exerted by the Guise family. Jeanne Harrie offers a compelling example which

supports the argument that the Guise family was positioning itself as a possible

alternative to the Valois. Harrie offers a sample of artwork from this period as an

example of this initiative, arguing that The Triumph of the Eucharist and of the

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

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

Medici and her policy regarding the conciliation of French Catholics and

Huguenots329 (see Appendix C). The representation of Antoinette Bourbon in the

portrait acted as an antithesis of Catherine, cementing the family's claims to

328 Parrow, 708.

329 Jeanne Harrie, “The Guises, the Body of Christ, and the Body Politic,” The Sixteenth Century

Journal vol. 37, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 43, accessed January 31st, 2014,


81

religious and political leadership over those of Catherine.330 The Guises were

determined to keep Catholicism, what they believed was the true faith, as the only

religion in France.331 The easiest way to ensure this would be to secure the

support of the public in their favour, rather than Catherine's.

As a form of public art, this piece was intended for a royal audience,

meaning that the Guise family knew explicitly who would be analyzing it. By

placing Antoinette as a matriarchal figure at the enamel's centre, the Guises

challenged Catherine's position as regent, and mother of France.332 The enamel

propositioned that the Guises were Catherine's opposition, and presented them as

possible candidates for the French throne through the emphasis of their religious

orthodoxy and a commemoration of their various achievements on behalf of the

faith and the kingdom.333 Through the commission of this enamel, the Guises

were acknowledging their lack of support of Catherine in an extremely obvious

fashion. They could afford to take such risks, however, due to the overwhelming

support they received from French Catholics.

The support for the Guise family was indeed massive. One of its members,

the Duke of Guise, was seen as both a hero of war and of the Catholic faith, and

was thus welcomed as the man who would rid Paris of Huguenot heretics. As he

rode into the city on March 16th, 1562, Guise made a grand entry.

330 Harrie, 43.

331 Harrie, 45.

332 Harrie, 52.

333 Harrie, 53.

82

He deliberately chose to enter through the porte St.-Denis, the gate

used for royal entries, in order to give an impression of power and

authority. And, indeed, he was greeted royally. He was met by an

impressive entourage of nobles, city officers, and bourgeois. The

crowds that lined the streets to view his arrival shouted their joy –

and their hatred of the Huguenots.334

The Catholics in Paris were possessed by an unwavering support of the Guise

family, and would react to any political move against them by rioting. The threat

posed by the Guises' support, however, was not only to be found within Paris.

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

France. Pockets of support were found in Northern and Northwestern France,

which provided them with financial and military resources as well as increased

their power.335

As the centre of French Catholicism, Paris was volatile.336 It had a long

history of mob violence, a subject with which both Catherine and the League were

intimately acquainted. The mobs of Paris proved to be a vital component in the

unfolding of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, though Catherine consistently

sought to keep it under her control.337 The mob in Paris was also fueled by factors

apart from Guise orthodoxy. The society of Paris felt that the Huguenot doctrines,

in addition to their heresy, attacked their secular community.338 The social body of

French Catholics was tied directly to the services they took part of in Church, all

of which were cut from Huguenot services.

334 Diefendorf, 1076-1077.



336 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 21-22.

337 Baumgartner, Reactionaries, 21-22.

338 Leonardo, 252.

83

By denouncing and mocking the fundamentals of Catholic

orthodoxy, especially Christ's real presence and the sacrifice of the

Mass, Calvinists had severed all ties to the Catholic community and

were no longer members of the body of Christ. It was only natural

that conviction in a corporeal metaphor would lead Catholics to

view Huguenots as a disease corrupting religious and social

bonds.339

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

Huguenots. This, in addition to several other factors, elicited Catholics to act out

against those they perceived as heretics, actions which they believed were

legitimized through their own religious beliefs.340 It was for this reason that

Catherine could not control them during the massacre.

The Massacre

Because she continually sought stability for herself, her son the King, and

the country of France, Catherine ultimately decided the Huguenot threat had

become too great. This threat, however, did not come from the Huguenot masses

directly, but rather from their leaders, and chief among them Gaspard de

Coligny.341 Until September 1571, Catherine had not seen Coligny as a serious

threat to her power. Though he exerted considerable influence over her son

Charles IX, he also maintained a steadfast loyalty to the monarchy. Coligny even

acknowledged Catherine as the power source behind the throne, and was received

warmly by her as a result.342 As the Protestant reformation grew in the

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

339 Leonardo, 252.

340 Parrow, 708.

341 Gray, 124.

342 Gray, 123.

84

king to provide support for reformers.343 Evidence of Coligny's colonial ambitions

extended back to 1555, when a Huguenot settlement founded near Rio De Janeiro,

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

Coligny's current proposition included supporting the Netherlands through war

with Spain, which Catherine violently opposed.345 When put forward to the Royal

Council August 10th, 1572, Coligny was outvoted; his influence, however, meant

that the other Huguenot leaders still wanted war.346 During the next two weeks,

Catherine plotted his demise.

Though they certainly posed a threat, it was not the Protestant leaders

within France who Catherine feared the most. Much like the relationship between

the Huguenots and their leaders within France, the danger had grown to include

potential international allies, which had now become the largest threat to France's

shaky peace.347 According to Van Dyke, “it soon became evident that the question

of peace or war was not one which could be decided... [by] her court policy. The

Huguenots were still able to keep the field and so long as they kept the field, there

was always the chance of foreign interference on their behalf.”348 The collective

number of Protestant groups throughout England, the German provinces, and The

Netherlands would have outnumbered any French defence.349 It was for this

reason that Catherine decided the Huguenot leader, Gaspard de Coligny, must be

343 Gray, 123-124.

344 Gray, 90-91.

345 Gray, 124.

346 Gray, 124.




85

eliminated.350

In the days leading up to the massacre that would seal her fate in history as

a villain, Catherine continued to seek conciliation between the Catholic and

Huguenot parties. In an effort to legitimize her cause in the eyes of the royal

court, Catherine arranged the marriage of her Catholic daughter Marguerite to

Henry of Navarre, the nominal head of French Protestantism and a prominent

member of the Bourbon family.351 The prospect of the union was initially opposed

by nearly everyone except Catherine; Jeanne d'Albret, Henry's mother, was

strongly opposed, as was eighteen-year-old Henry.352 However, the union was

attractive to Jeanne d'Albret regardless of her religious beliefs as it brought her

son closer to the throne and was accompanied by a huge dowry, totaling

approximately 300 000 livres.353 Jeanne did not live to witness the marriage,

dying in June.354 The pope himself also rejected the union and threatened not to

grant a dispensation, without which the marriage would be considered illegal by

the Catholic Church.355

Despite these statements of opposition, the marriage contract was signed

by both parties on April 11th, 1572.356 Though designed specifically to reconcile

the religious divide, the wedding, which took place August 18th in Paris, did


351 Steven Kreis, “Lecture 6: Europe in the Age of Religious Wars, 1560-1715,” The History

Guide: Lectures on Early Modern European History, August 4th 2009, accessed March 13th,

2014, http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html.

352 Erlanger, 72.

353 Erlanger, 86.

354 Gray, 127.

355 Erlanger, 72.

356 Erlanger, 86.

86

nothing to quell religious tensions.357 Catholics denied its validity and believed it

was merely another example of Catherine's efforts to legitimize the Huguenot

cause.358 What the Catholics did not know, however, was that Catherine was

planning the elimination of the Huguenot leaders, as an ultimate effort to end the

religious conflict. The Huguenots, contrary to the Catholics, rejoiced at the

prospect of this union, as the ultra-Huguenot Henry of Navarre was to become a

prominent part of the royal family, which could only mean an increase in their

prominence within France.359

As the wedding brought Coligny to Paris, it made sense for Catherine to

choose it as the perfect time to launch her plans into action. This may have been

simple enough, but the desicion to order the deaths of these men did not come

easily for Catherine. According to Paul Van Dyke, it took Catherine years to

finally decide that Coligny posed too great a threat, as he had been among her

only friends at court after the death of her husband Henry II.360 He had also

helped to ensure that Huguenots in France, who felt threatened by periodic

outbreaks of violence against them, adhered to the Edicts of Saint-Germain and

Amboise, promising that the King would protect them.361 Most importantly,

however, Coligny had been an avid supporter of Catherine as regent.362 She was

ultimately convinced, however, by the threat he and his ambitions for France

357 Gray, 130.

358 Gray, 130.

359 Gray, 130.


361 Paul Van Dyke, Catherine de Médicis, vol. II (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922), 312,

accessed March 21, 2014, https://archive.org/details/catherinedemedic02vand.

362 Van Dyke, vol. ii, 82.

87

posed to her eldest son, Charles IX.363 All accounts of the hours leading up to the

massacre depict her, surrounded by advisors, deep in discussion for hours before

making a final decision. It is undisputed that Catherine wanted Coligny dead, but

historians have failed to prove her ultimate guilt in the St. Bartholomew's Day

Massacre, which took place August 24th, 1572.364

According to Jacques-Auguste de Thou, a French statesman and

historiographer who witnessed the massacre as a child,365 Catherine approved of

the plan to kill the Protestants.366 What he does not specify, however, is which

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

Thou describes how Catherine and her advisors “discussed for some time whether

they should make an exception of the king of Navarre and the prince of Condé.

All agreed that the king of Navarre should be spared by reason of the royal

dignity and the new alliance.”367 It is important to remember the bias in primary

source accounts, especially surrounding controversial events such as massacre. It

is extremely unclear from whom the order came to murder the Huguenots. It is

unlikely that it was Catherine, as her initial plan to kill Coligny two days before

the massacre does not correlate with the massacre itself. As written in another

chronicle by Prosper Mérimée, “enfin, l'assassinat de Coligny, qui eut lieu deux

jours avant la Saint-Barthélemy, n'achève-t-il pas de réfuter la supposition d'un


364 Paul Halsall, ed., Jacques-Auguste de Thou, “The Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, Aug.

24, 1572,” Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University, accessed March 14th, 2014,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1572stbarts.asp.

365 “Jacques-Auguste de Thou,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed March 14th, 2014,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/593465/Jacques-Auguste-de-Thou.

366 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1572stbarts.asp.

367 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1572stbarts.asp.

88

complot? Pourquoi tuer le chef avant le massacre général?”368 Coligny was the

only real leader: the two other princes, Condé and Navarre, were too young to

exert much influence. Coligny's death, therefore, was the only one necessary to

ensure Charles' safety.369 The order for Coligny's death would only be legal if

issued by the King, so Catherine attempted to convince Charles to issue the

order.370

The reputed mental instability of Charles IX suggests that his explosive

response to Catherine's suggestions, whether intended or not, triggered the

massacre. The initial plot to have Coligny murdered failed when the would-be

assassin missed his shot, merely wounding Coligny.371 In the frenzy that followed,

Jean Héritier suggests that Charles ordered the guards to kill every Huguenot, and

spare none, with the reasoning that none would be left to reproach him for the

deed.372 Héritier argues that, in an attempt to change his image as a weak king,

Charles wanted to prove himself as a brave soldier to his mother and brother by

rising against the Huguenots.373 He is depicted by various historians, such as Janet

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

Huguenots from his balcony.374 His impulsiveness, together with the volatile mob

of Paris, created a fatal combination.375

368 Translation: “Doesn't the assassination itself of Coligny, which occurred two days before

Saint-Bartholomew, refute the supposition of a plot? Why kill the chief before the general

massacre?”

Prosper Mérimée, Chronique du règne de Charles IX (Paris: Charpentier, 1842), 8-9.

369 Mérimée, 9.

370 Mérimée, 9.

371 Knecht, Renaissance Court, 254-255.

372 Héritier, 324-325.

373 Héritier, 325.

374 Héritier, 325.


89

It did not matter that Catherine and her advisors had not intended mass

casualties. Once the order was issued, the Catholics of Paris, “encouraged by a

guise of legality... eagerly sought to eradicate heresy in their city.”376 As a result

of mob violence, thousands of Huguenots were killed that night.377 King Charles

immediately issued an edict the next day in a bid to stop the violence, proclaiming

he wanted a list of names of each Huguenot survivor, and that people in Paris

should “preserve all the said persons of the [reformed] religion, so that no

annoyance or wrong should be done to them, but that they should be well and

truly guarded,”378 threatening those who disobeyed with execution.379

Seeing that the aftermath of the massacre would lead to another outbreak

of war, Charles and Catherine worked together to manipulate the events

surrounding the massacre, portraying it as a necessary evil.380 Charles took

initiative and went to the Parlement in Paris on August 26th to address rumours

surrounding his role in the massacre.381 A supportive atmosphere existed within

Paris after the event, and Charles, prompted by Catherine, who sincerely believed

there was no suitable alternative, took full advantage. Charles announced to the

Parlement that he claimed full responsibility for the massacre, adding that he felt

that it was the will of God.382


377 Erlanger, 191-192.

378 Erlanger, 171.

379 Rady, 81.

380 Gray, 150.

381 Gray, 150.

382 Henri Noguères, The Massacre of Saint-Bartholomew, trans. Claire Engel (New York:

Macmillan, 1970), p. 137, in Gray, 150.

90

After the Massacre: Catherine's Last Years

During the aftermath of Saint Bartholomew's, Catherine fought to reassert

control over Paris. To ensure that her influence be dominant once again in

effecting peace throughout the kingdom, she had to act fast, and decided to act as

though the massacre had been fully intentional. This, of course, violated her

traditional conciliatory policies, yet it was the only action she could take that

guaranteed her renewed position as a political power player.383 Catherine was

forced to align herself with the Catholic cause. The Huguenots had deserted her

after the massacre, and now considered Catherine and her sons as their strongest

adversaries.384 Had she chosen instead to face Parlement and admit that the

massacre had been unintended, the Catholics in Paris would have again erupted,

for they were celebrating the recent events as a miracle.385

The Massacre of Saint-Bartholomew had resounding effects in France and

throughout greater Europe. In the first letters sent to the provinces and

international capital cities bearing his account of the massacre, Charles

condemned the Guises as the culprits, yet went to Parlement the next day to

profess his own guilt in the matter, a statement which contradicted his earlier

claims.386 Catherine also sent out contradictory documents that each bore a

different account of the massacre. The resulting message received by the various

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

383 Gray, 150.

384 Rady, 81.

385 Rady, 81.

386 Noguères, 150.

91

frenzy.387 Within France, though the king had issued an edict on August 25th to

stop the massacres, his stance on the subject soon began to waver. The violent

mob mentality that had taken over Paris now began to infect cities such as Meaux,

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

Bordeaux.388

To increase their popularity with the Catholics, whose support served as

the most direct route to ultimate authority in post-massacre France, Charles and

Catherine deliberately sent out deplicitous messages, intent on burying the truth

that the massacre was largely a coincidence and the risk it entailed of their

leadership being questioned.389 In one such message, Catherine wrote to her

daughter Elizabeth in Spain, emphasizing that neither she nor Charles were

involved in the first attempt on Coligny's life. In her letter, Catherine claimed that

while Charles sought the man responsible for the first attempt on the admiral's

life, it was revealed that Coligny was planning a coup in which he would murder

the king, and that she and Charles had therefore been compelled to aid the Guises

in their murder of Coligny.390 According to Van Dyke, this claim was denied by

the Guises, who argued they were not involved in the murder.391

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

Catholic faith she appealed to in her letter.

387 Gray, 150.


389 Oeuvres de François de La Mothe Le Vayer Tome VII, Part 2, (1759), 323, in Van Dyke, vol ii,

110.

390 Oeuvres de La Mothe, 110-111.


92

Je me suys tousjours asseuree que vous recevrez singulier plaisir

dentendre lheureux success de lexecution de lamyral et ses

adherans, comme nos lettres due IIIIe de ce mois lont

suffisamment tesmoigne, en quoy le roy, monsieur mon filz receoit

tres grande contentement... de laquelle il espere que Dieu lui fera la

grace de tirer le fruict necessaire a la restauration de son eglise.392

Sent September 15th, 1572,393 this letter is merely one among several

contradictory letters issued by Catherine during the aftermath of the massacre

with the intent that the messy origins of the event would be hidden. It is also

significant that this particular letter, which claims full responsibility for the killing

of Coligny and the other Huguenot leaders, makes no mention to the massacre of

thousands of Huguenots in Paris. This omission was meant to distance Catherine

from the atrocities of the greater massacre.

Catherine and Charles worked together during this period to ensure the

monarchy remained strong and secure during the aftermath of the Massacre.

Charles, however, took initiative once again, as he had done when he ordered the

deaths of all the Huguenots in Paris, and sent another round of letters to the

provinces, charging them to uphold the pacifying edict he issued August 25th.394

Perhaps feeling as though his act had not been completed, Charles contradicted

these letters days later by sending secret messengers with orders to "take no

account of the previous letters, but to follow the example of Paris in eliminating

392 Translation: “I am continually assured that you will receive utmost pleasure in hearing of the

happy success of the execution of the admiral and his adherents, as our letters from the 4th of

this month sufficiently described, in which the king, my son received very great contentment...

for which he hopes that God will give him his grace by doing all that is necessary to restore his

church.”

C. Charles Casati, ed., “Catherine de Médicis, ” Lettres royaux et lettres missives inédites

(Paris: Librairie académique, 1877), 67, accessed March 23rd, 2014,


393 Casati, 67.

394 Gray, 150.

93

Huguenots."395 Acting without the advice of his mother, Charles once again made

an impulsive decision he would later regret.

The international response to the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre

varied greatly, depending upon regional religious affiliation. The most orthodox

of the Catholic rulers, Philip II of Spain and Pope Gregory XIII, celebrated the

event.396 The pope rejoiced openly at the Huguenot casualties by commissioning

several pieces of public art and a commemorative seal for the event.397 Philip sent

a letter to Charles congratulating him on his feat, and urging him to continue

attacking Huguenot heresy.398 Throughout the rest of Europe, however, the

massacre was considered an atrocity.399 In Vienna, London and Geneva, the news

was even received with fear, due to the belief that they themseves were potential

victims of a future massacre.400

Catherine was also herself a victim of the massacre, albeit in a different

sense, as her classic conciliatory policies would no longer work. Had she offered

any support to the Huguenots immediately following the massacre, Catherine

would ultimately have been labelled by the Catholics as a closeted Huguenot. As a

result, Catherine became a traitor to her original conciliatory policies as she

offered her support to the Catholic cause. This would lead her even further from

her intended direction, as the aftermath of the massacre, according to Gray,

marked the "formation of a direct path to the Catholic League."401 However more

395 Gray, 150.

396 Gray, 151.

397 Gray, 151.

398 Gray, 151-152.

399 Paul F. Geisendorf, Théodore de Bèze, in Gray, 152.

400 Gray, 152-153.

401 Gray, 153.

94

secure Catherine's newfound affiliation with the Catholic cause assured her, she

was never entirely safe. On May 30th, 1574, Charles died,402 whereupon Catherine

once again declared herself regent until the return of her son, Henry III, duke of

Anjou and elected King of Poland.403

This regency took place between the end of a reign and the beginning of a

new one and was universally acknowledged as a weak period in France. Because

of this, several plots against the monarchy surfaced.404 Condé was, at this point,

seriously considering an attempt to overtake the throne, and nearly acted upon his

plans to do so.405 Another minor plot involved supporters of Catherine's youngest

son, the Duke of Alençon. A small group of minor noblemen were planning to

assassinate Catherine and Anjou in 1574, so that Alençon could become king.406

Both of these plots were swiftly discovered, and put down. Catherine successfully

secured the kingdom while Henry travelled back from Poland to become King of

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

Unlike his brothers before him, Henry accepted and desired little advice

from Catherine in regards to how to run his kingdom.408 Catherine's influence as

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

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

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

402 “Charles IX,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed March 15th, 2014,

www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/107197/Charles-IX.

403 Robert M. Kingdon, Myths About the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacres, 1572-1576

(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 201.

404 Kingdon, 190.

405 Kingdon, 190.

406 Kingdon, 194.

407 Rady, 83.

408 Rady, 83.

95

support of the Huguenot faction to counteract the influence of the Guises and the

newly prominent Catholic League, an organization within which he had been

denied prominence.409 Unlike Catherine, however, Henry lacked political finesse.

During his reign, Henry was despised by many of his subjects, who saw him as

the ultimate Huguenot sympathizer, ostentatious both in dress and behaviour, and

engaging in lude acts; he even became infected with syphilis as a result of his

various exploits.410 He also created massive polarity within the royal court

through his impulsive decisions. Evidence of his lack of reflection before making

decisions is evident in a letter written by him addressed to his supporters in March

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

With very little regard for the atmosphere at court and potential

consequences of his decisions, Henry pursued his support for the Huguenots.

Henry was ignorant of the massive Catholic majority that had developed in France

since the massacre, and that institutions such as the Catholic League had risen in

prominence as a result.412 Henry also held very little regard for the nobility in

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

Machiavelli specifically warns against in his treatise. "The King of France is

placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords, acknowledged by their own

subjects, and beloved by them; they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king

take these away except at his peril."413 This marks the biggest difference between

409 Kingdon, 125.

410 Gray, 164-165.

411 C. Charles Casati, ed., “Henri III,” Lettres royaux et lettres missives inédites (Paris: Librairie

académique, 1877), 31, accessed March 23rd, 2014,


412 Gray, 164-165.

413 Machiavelli, 15.

96

Henry and his mother; Catherine joined the Catholic masses upon realizing that it

promised her continued power through its creation of a stable France, a country in

which her conciliatory approach had become unfeasible. Henry, meanwhile,

ignored or was ignorant of the developments in France's religious climate and

pursued policies which offered him alone the greatest immediate benefit and

pleasure.414 The combination of these factors created a sovereign who lacked the

respect of his subjects, and who seemed to have little respect for himself.

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

Refusing to take advantage of Catherine's years of experience in dealing with

religious conflict, Henry believed he could force the rest of France to forget past

conflicts, thereby ensuring an end to the warfare he so loathed to take part of.415

During the second year of his reign, Henry issued the Peace of Monsieur in 1576,

as a peace settlement in the latest civil war.416 It stated that

La memoire de toutes choses passées... depuis les troubles advenuz

en nostred. royaume et à l’occasion d’iceulx, demeurera estaincte

et assoupie comme de chose non advenue ; et ne sera loisible ny

permis à noz procureurs generaulx ny autres personnes publicques

ou privées quelzconques... en faire mention.417

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

414 Héritier, 366.

415 Héritier, 366.

416 “VII Paix de Monsieur. Édit de Paris dit de Beaulieu,” VII (1), The French Wars of Religion:

Important Primary Texts, accessed March 15th, 2014,

http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_07.

417 Translation: “The memory of all things past... since the troubles which befell our kingdom

will remain extinguished and dormant, as if they never happened, and will be neither legal nor

permitted among general prosecutors nor other persons of public or private office... to be

mentioned.”


97

to become increasingly involved with Catholic partisanship. He frequently spoke

of his desire for all of France to follow Catholicism, yet roamed around during

official ceremonies in bare feet, stating his devotion to Huguenot self-

deprication.418 Henry's neurotic tendencies caused Catherine much pain during the

last years of her life.419

One entity which posed a very real threat to the monarchy during the reign

of Henry III was the Catholic League. The main purpose of the Catholic League

was "the preservation of the Catholic Church and the elimination of heresy from

the realm."420 The League was formed in 1576 by the Catholic nobility in France

under the leadership of Henry I de Lorraine, the third duke of Guise, in response

to the Peace of Monsieur.421 These men represented traditional Catholicism, and

used ancient religious texts to legitimize their cause, demonstrating the lengths to

which they were willing to go to purge France of the Huguenot presence. Relying

specifically on religious symbolism familiar to the public, the Catholic League

successfully secured the support of thousands, and acted as an antithesis to

Henry.422 The massive tensions in Paris, partially fueled by the League, motivated

the Guises to gather an army against Henry during the summer of 1589. Before

they could strike, however, a young Dominican friar by the name of Jacques

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

418 Gray, 165.

419 Héritier, 367.

420 Dalia M. Leonardo, “'Cut off This Rotten Member': The Rhetoric of Heresy, Sin, and Disease

in the Ideology of the French Catholic League,” The Catholic Historical Review vol. 88, no. 2

(April 2002): 248, accessed February 11th, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25026145.


422 Leonardo, 248.

98

him.423 Henry's refusal to hede any of Catherine's advice, which only intensified

after her death, had finally resulted in his ultimate demise. As stated by Héritier,

Catherine was "a kind of Prime Minister to an affectionate despot who never

ceased to disconcert her."424 Henry died from the wound on August 2nd as a victim

of the polarity he had created in France.

Catherine's Final Days

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

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

Her final years were marred by sickness, and her infinite energy was at last

depleted. She was also isolated during this period, and traumatized by the memory

of her former glory.425 Catherine found little comfort in the visits of her son, as his

instability had caused an irreversible strain on their relationship.426 During her last

days, Catherine was entirely removed from the affairs of the state, yet still sought

a purpose, as she had never been fond of sitting idly. Her last act saw her once

again resume the role of mother-figure and conciliator as she arranged the

marriage of her granddaughter Christine of Lorraine to Ferdinand de Medici,

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

October 24th, 1588, and a dowry was provided by Catherine for Christine

consisting of the sum of her Florentine property and 2 000 écus in gold.428


424 Héritier, 368.

425 Héritier, 454.

426 Héritier, 453.

427 Héritier, 454.

428 Héritier, 454.

99

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

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

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

An excerpt from an anonymous Parisian pamphlet published shortly after her

death effectively summarized the polarity Catherine's conciliatory initiatives

created throughout her reign. As translated by Robert Knecht,

Here lies the queen who was both devil and angel,

Full of blame and full of praise:

She upheld the state and brought down the state;

She made many treaties and as many disputes;

She gave birth to three kings and to five civil wars;

Had châteaux built and towns ruined;

Made many good laws and bad edicts;

Passer-by, wish her Hell and Paradise.430

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

Queen Consort, Queen Regent and Queen Mother. Catherine incited such

opinions in people because her conciliatory policies were controversial, and

furthermore because she was a woman in a position of power. The opposition with

which she was faced throughout her political career demonstrated that both

concepts had not yet been accepted by France.

As a queen who successfully manipulated French political imagery

through the use of accepted female roles such as wife, widow and mother,

Catherine was ahead of her time. Her conciliatory beliefs, as well as the policies

she legislated, also preceded popular opinion in France, and were not reflected in

the legislation of either Charles IX or Henry III. Evidence of Catherine's political

429 “Catherine de Medici (1519-1589),” BBC History, accessed March 15th, 2014,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/de_medici_catherine.shtml.


100

ingenuity, however, lies in the creation of the Edict of Nantes, issued by King

Henry IV on April 13th, 1598.431 It was the first edict since Catherine which

accorded major rights to Huguenots in France. Her belief that religion should not

be a barrier to freedom and equality was finally articulated, which not only

promised Huguenots a life exempt from religious and political persecution in

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

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

As stated in section 22, “ordonnons qu'il ne sera faict difference ne distinction,

pour le regard de la Religion, à recevoir les escoliers pour estre instruictz ez

universitez, colleges et escoles...”434 Though the main purpose of Nantes was to

unite Catholics and Huguenots in France, it was subject to a long debate between

Huguenot parties and the king's commissionaires, as both groups felt ultimately

jilted. Nevertheless, this edict was groundbreaking, and represented the fruition of

all of Catherine's conciliatory efforts.

Despite many inhibiting factors that stood in her way, such as the lack of

acceptance in France for a woman in a position of authority and traditional Salic

law which legislated these dated beliefs, Catherine de' Medici set a new precedent

for female political figures in France through her creation of a platform upon

which she built her career as a political powerhouse. Catherine also strove to

431 Gray, 264.

432 “XII Édit de Nantes. Édit général,” Édition en ligne de l'École des chartres, accessed March

19th, 2014, http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_12.

433 http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_12.

434 Translation: “We order that there will be no distinction, for the regard of the Religion, to

receive education for students at universities, colleges and schools.”


101

establish political unity in France through the acceptance of the Huguenot faith.

Her edicts of Saint-Germain and Amboise allowed Huguenots limited rights to

worship due to an opposing Catholic presence. Had Catherine legislated complete

acceptance of the new faith, she would have lost the fragile stability she had been

building since her instatement as Queen Regent. She realized that Catholic France

was not yet willing to accept the complete legalization of the Huguenot faith, and

created policies accordingly. So long as Catherine was in power or exerted

influence over her son the king, she was free to enact her own policies

independently. As Queen Mother of her children and her country, Catherine

sought to create a stable country through the legislation of her conciliatory

policies, which, through a more united religious front, would end conflict in

France.

102

Conclusion

This thesis has argued that through the effective manipulation of political

imagery and the employment of conciliatory legislation, Catherine projected

herself as wife, widow and mother of the last three Valois kings, and maintained

her position as the leading political figure in France. She displayed a remarkable

fusion of cunning and character, controlling religious conflict through her

conciliatory policies to garner success while simultaneously pursuing her role as

Queen Mother. As evident in her three years as Queen Regent, Catherine

consistently protected Charles IX from the domination of the Guise faction,435 and

issued edicts which prevented Huguenots from the prospect of inquisition and

granted them rights to worship in designated areas. Catherine acted as the mother

of France, ensuring that her matriarchal image served to increase her power. The

unity of her role as conciliator and her image as the mother of France continued

until the Saint-Bartholomew's Day Massacre, when the continuation of her

conciliatory policies would have meant an end to her power.

Catherine was forced to align herself with the Catholic faction after the

massacre to ensure she maintain a position of political authority in France. It did

not matter that the massacre was an accident, occurring largely due to the

religious fervour of Paris; the climate in France had shifted, and Catherine was no

435 Crawford, 652.

103

longer able to offer political support to the Huguenot cause. Had she done so, she

would have been instantly labelled a Huguenot sympathizer, and would have lost

all influence at court. Catherine only stopped issuing conciliatory policies when

doing so would have meant the difference between staying in power and

becoming irrelevant. The largest consequence of this event for Catherine, apart

from a change in political tactics, was the damage it caused her reputation. This

event has served as a permanent smear on Catherine's historical record, though

her involvement has never been proven outside of Coligny's assassination.

In a bid to maintain her power, Catherine abandoned her conciliatory

policies after the massacre. The edicts she successfully issued as Queen Regent

bear some reflection of her original political aspirations for France. The policies

she was able to legislate, among which are included the Edicts of Saint-Germain

and Amboise, do not represent the full scope of her vision of a religiously and

politically united France, but rather the absolute limit of what French society

would accept. Catherine sought to balance the political factions in France in the

hopes that stability would ensue. The edicts do not reflect her personal beliefs, but

rather what she thought would best ensure stability for herself and for France.

Catherine's vision would not come to fruition until 1598, when Henry IV issued

the Edict of Nantes which granted Huguenots complete freedom from religious

and political persecution, as well as the rights to representation in judicial courts

and to pursue an education.436 Even this edict did not last, however, and was

ultimately revoked by Louis XIV in 1685.437

436 http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_12.

437 “Revocation of the Edict of Nantes,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed March 24th, 2014,

104

Appendix A

The Valois family tree.

Valois-Angoulême

Francis I

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

King 1535-1547

Francis II Charles IX Henry III Marguerite

(1544-1560) (1550-1574) (1551-1589) (1553-1610)

King 1559-1560 King 1560-1574 King 1574-1589 = = Mary Stuart Henry of

Navarre

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

Edict-of-Nantes.

Source: Janet Glenn Gray, The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage

(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 16.

105

Appendix B

Catherine de’ Medici is pictured here in the traditional black dress of a widow,

which she continued to wear for the rest of her life after the death of her husband,

Henry II. This was done to create a link between herself and her husband, which

would ensure she remain seen as his wife and allow her to exercise authority.

Source: François Clouet, Catherine de’ Medici, c. 1580, oil on panel,

33.7 x 25.4 cm, The Art Walters Museum.

106

Appendix C

Commissioned by the Guises, this enamel, titled Triumph of the Eucharist and of

the Catholic Faith, was a piece of public art, and meant to show their opposition

to Catherine de’ Medici’s conciliatory edicts.

Source: Léonard Limousin, The Triumph of the Eucharist and of the

Catholic Faith, c. 1560-1570, enamel on copper, 19.2 x 25.1 cm,

The Frick Collection.

107

Appendix D

François Dubois’ famous painting of the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre

which occurred August 24th, 1572. Despite many historians such as Sir John

Ernest Neale who blame her for this event, Catherine’s guilt remains unproven.

Source: François Dubois, Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, Musée

cantonal des Beaux-arts de Lausanne.

108

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Casati, C. Charles, ed. Lettres royaux et lettres missives inédites. Paris: Librairie

académique, 1877. Accessed March 23rd, 2014.

http://ia700304.us.archive.org/3/items/lettresroyauxet00casauoft/lettresroy

auxet00casauoft.pdf.

Clouet, François. Catherine de’ Medici. C. 1580. Oil on panel. 33.7 x 25.4 cm.

The Art Walters Museum. Accessed March 20th, 2014.

http://art.thewalters.org/images/art/large/l_pl9_37415_fnt_sl_t.jpg

Dubois, François. Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. Sixteenth century. Oil on

panel. 94 x 154 cm. Musée cantonal des Beaux-arts de Lausanne.

Accessed March 20th, 2014.

http://www.folger.edu/imgdtl.cfm?imageid=1068&cid=1624.

“Édit d'Amboise.” Édition en ligne de l'École des chartres. Accessed March 11th,

2014. http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_02.

“Édit de Janvier.” Édition en ligne de l'École des chartres. Accessed March 11th,

2014. http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_01.

“Édit de Nantes. Édit général.” Édition en ligne de l'École des chartres. Accessed

March 19th, 2014. http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_12.

Halsall, Paul, editor. Jacques-Auguste de Thou. “The Massacre of St.

Bartholomew's Day, Aug. 24, 1572.” Modern History Sourcebook,

Fordham University. Accessed March 14th, 2014.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1572stbarts.asp.

Ferrière, Hector, ed. Lettres de Catherine de Médicis. Paris: Imprimerie

Nationale, 1880. Located at University of Toronto Libraries. Accessed

January 26th, 2014.

http://archive.org/stream/lettresdecatheri10cathuoft#page/n5/mode/2up.

Limousin, Léonard. The Triumph of the Eucharist and of the Catholic Faith. C.

1560-1570. Enamel on copper. 19.2 x 25.1 cm. The Frick Collection.

Accessed March 20th, 2014.

http://collections.frick.org/internal/media/dispatcher/263/resize:format=pr

eview.

MacFarlane, I.D. The Entry of Henri II Into Paris: 16 June 1549. Binghamton:

Centre for Medieval & Early Renaissance Studies, 1982.

109

Machiavelli, Niccolò. Christian E. Detmold, trans. The Prince. New York:

Washington Square Press, Inc, 1968.

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

Noguères, Henri. The Massacre of Saint-Bartholomew. Translated by Claire

Engel. New York: Macmillan, 1970. In Janet Glenn Gray, The French

Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,

1981.

Oeuvres de François de La Mothe Le Vayer Tome VII, Part 2. Paris: 1759. In Paul

Van Dyke, Catherine de Médicis, vol. II. New York: Charles Scribner's

Sons, 1922. Accessed March 22, 2014.

https://archive.org/details/catherinedemedic02vand.

“Paix de Monsieur. Édit de Paris dit de Beaulieu.” The French Wars of Religion:

Important Primary Texts. Accessed March 15th, 2014.


Secondary Sources:

“Agrippa d'Aubigné (1552-1630).” Éditions Arfuyen. Accessed November 6th,

2013. http://www.arfuyen.fr/html/ficheateur.asp?id_aut=1165.

“Anthony of Bourbon.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed January 6th, 2014.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27404/Anthony-of-Bourbon.

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

Company, 1901.

Barnett, Vincent. “Niccolo Machiavelli: the Cunning Critic of Political Reason.”

History Review (2006). Accessed February 26th, 2014.

http://www.histoytoday.com/vincent-barnett/niccolo- machiavelli-

%E2%80%93-cunning-critic-political-reason.

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

University Press, 1988.

Baumgartner, Frederic J. Radical Reactionaries: the political thought of the

French Catholic League. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1975.

“Beza at Geneva.” History of the Christian Church. Accessed February 14th,

2014. http://www.bible.ca/history/philip-schaff/8_ch19.htm.

110

"Catherine de' Medici (1519-1589)." BBC History. Accessed March 15th, 2014.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/de_medici_catherine_shtml.

"Charles IX." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed March 15th, 2014.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/107197/Charles-IX.

Collier, Theodore. "Review: Catherine de Médicis by Paul Van Dyke." The

American Historical Review vol. 28, no. 3 (April 1923). Accessed

November 26th, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1836421.

"Conspiracy at Amboise." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed March 7th, 2014.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/18961/Conspiracy-of-

Amboise.

Copenhaver, Brian. "Giovanni Pico della Mirandola." The Stanford Encyclopedia

of Philosophy (Summer 2012). Accessed December 21st, 2013.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pico-della- mirandola/.

Crawford, Katherine “Catherine de Medicis and the Performance of Political

Motherhood.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 31, no. 3 (Autumn 2000):

643-673. Accessed September 18th, 2013.


Diefendorf, Barbara. "Prelude to a Massacre: Popular Unrest in Paris, 1557-

1572." The American Historical Review vol. 90, no. 5 (December 1985):

1067-1091. Accessed February 1st, 2014.


Diefendorf, Barbara. “Simon Vigor: A Radical Preacher in Sixteenth-Century

Paris.” The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 18, no. 3 (Autumn 987): 399-

410. Accessed February 25th, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2540725.

Drouot, Henri. “Jean Héritier – Catherine de Medicis.” Revue d'histoire de

l'Église de France vol. 27, no. 112 (1941): 243-245. Accessed December

22nd, 2013.

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rhef_0300-

9505_1941_num_27_112_2924_t1_0243_0000_4.

Dunn, Richard S. The Age of Religious Wars, 1559-1715. New York: W.W.

Norton & Company, Inc., 1979.

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

"Enrico Caterino Davila." Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911. Accessed November

6th, 2013.

http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/d/enrico_caterino_davila.html.

111

Erlanger, Philippe. St. Bartholomew's Night: The Massacre of Saint-

Bartholomew. Translated by Patrick O'Brian. Westport: Greenwood Press,

1962.

Ferguson, Margaret W., Maureen Quilligan and Nancy J. Vickers, eds. Rewriting

the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern

Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Ffolliott, Sheila. "Catherine de' Medici as Artemisia: Figuring the Powerful

Widow." In Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual

Difference in Early Modern Europe, edited by Margaret W. Ferguson,

Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1986.

Fontana, Biancamaria. Montaigne's Politics: Authority and Governance in the

Essais. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Geisendorf, Paul F. Théodore de Bèze. Geneva: Alexandre Jullien, 1967. In Janet

Glenn Gray, The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage. Grand Rapids:

Baker Book House, 1981.

Gray, Janet Glenn. The French Huguenots: Anatomy of Courage. Grand Rapids:

Baker Book House, 1981.

Guest, John Marshall. "The Law and Lawyers of Honoré de Balzac." University

of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register vol. 60, no. 2

(November 1911). Accessed Dcember 21st, 2013.


Hammond, Wayne G. and Christina Scull. “Milton Waldman.” Tolkein Gateway.

Accessed December 22nd, 2013.

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Milton_Waldman.

Harrie, Jeanne. “The Guises, the Body of Christ, and the Body Politic.” The

Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 37, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 43-57. Accessed

January 31st, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20477696.

Héritier, Jean. Catherine de' Medici. Translated by Charlotte Haldane. New York:

St. Martin's Press, 1963.

“Holy League.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed February 26th, 2014.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/269823/Holy-League.

112

"Hugh Ross Williamson." Sophia Institute Press. Accessed November 24th, 2013.

http://shop.sophiainstitute.com/cw_contributorinfo.aspx?

ContribID=72&Name=Hugh+Ross+Williamson.

"Jacques-Auguste de Thou." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed November 6th,

2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/593465/Jacques-

Auguste-de-Thou.

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

Kingdon, Robert M. Myths About the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacres, 1572-

1576. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.

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

University Press, 2008.

Kreis, Steven. “Lecture 6: Europe in the Age of Religious Wars, 1560-1715.” The

History Guide: Lectures on Early Modern European History. August 4th

2009. Accessed March 13th, 2014.

http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture6c.html.

Leonardo, Dalia M. “'Cut off This Rotten Member': The Rhetoric of Heresy, Sin,

and Disease in the Ideology of the French Catholic League.” The Catholic

Historical Review vol. 88, no. 2 (April 2002): 247-262. Accessed February

11th, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25026145.

“Machiavellianism.” Dictionary Reference. Accessed December 20th, 2013.


Merriman, C.D. "Honoré de Balzac." The Literature Network (2006). Accessed

December 20th, 2013. http://www.online-literature.com/honore_de_balzac.

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

“Michel de L'Hospital.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed March 23rd, 2014.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338507/Michel-de-

LHospital.

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

Row, Publishers, Incorporated, 1962.

Neale, Sir John Ernest. “The Failure of Catherine de Medici.” In The French

Wars of Religion, edited by J.H.M. Salmon. Lexington: D.C. and Heath

Company, 1967.

113

"Parlement." The Free Dictionary. Accessed February 26th, 2014.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Parlement+of+Paris.

Parrow, Kathleen A. “Neither Treason nor Heresy: Use of Defence Arguments to

Avoid Forfeiture during the French Wars of Religion.” The Sixteenth

Century Journal vol. 22, no. 4 (Winter 1991): 705-716. Accessed

February 10th, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2542373.

Phillpott, Matthew J. "A Novel Approaches Prelude: A Brief History of Historical

Fiction." Institute of Historical Research (2011). Accessed January 16th,

2014. http://ihrconference.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/mphillpott-

history-of-historical-fiction.pdf.

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

Rady, Martyn. France: Renaissance, Religion and Recovery, 1494-1610. London:

Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., 1988.

“Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed March

24th, 2014. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/348968/Louis-

XIV/4295/Revocation-of-the-Edict- of-Nantes.

Roelker, Nancy Lyman. One King, One Faith: The Parlement of Paris and the

Religious Reformations of the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1996.

“Sheila Ffolliott.” The Medici Archive Project. Accessed December 21st, 2013.

http://www.medici.org/board-trustees/sheila-ffoliott.

"Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed December

20th, 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/529629/Sir-

Walter-Scott-1st-Baronet.

Sutherland, N. M. “Catherine de Medici: The Legend of the Wicked Italian

Queen.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 9, no. 2, France in the Sixteenth

Century (July 1978): 45-56. Accessed September 18th, 2013.


"Thomas Carlyle." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed November 27th, 2013.

http://britannica.com/checked/topic/96126/Thomas-Carlyle.

"Valois Dynasty." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed February 26th, 2014.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/622379/Valois-Dynasty.

114

Van Dyke, Paul. Catherine de Médicis, vol. I. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,

1922. Accessed February 13th, 2014. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?

id=uc2.ark:/13960/t3dz06f66;view=1up;seq=13.

Van Dyke, Paul. Catherine de Médicis, vol. II. New York: Charles Scribner's

Sons, 1922. Accessed March 21, 2014,

https://archive.org/details/catherinedemedic02vand.

Waldman, Milton. Biography of a Family: Catherine de' Medici and her

Children. Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1936.

Walter, Elizabeth. “Obituary: Jean Paidy.” The Independent. January 20th, 1993.

Accessed December 22nd, 2013.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-jean-plaidy-

1479699.html.

Warnock, Christopher. “History of Astrology in the Renaissance.” Renaissance

Astrology (2002). Accessed December 18th, 2013.

http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/astrologyinrenaissance.html.

Watson, Sir Francis. The Life and Times of Catherine de' Medici. New York: D.

Appleton-Century Company Inc., 1935.

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

1973.

“Women and Gender Studies.” The College of New Jersey. Accessed December

22nd, 2013. http://wgs.pages.tcnj.edu/people/faculty/.

Catherine de' Medici: A Woman Before her Time by Sara ...

Documents

Transcript of Catherine de' Medici: A Woman Before her Time by Sara ...