Editing St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (section)

==Interpretations==
===Role of the royal family===
[[File:Catherine de Medicis.jpg|thumb|right|[[Catherine de' Medici]], Charles IX's mother, after [[François Clouet]].]]
Over the centuries, the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre has aroused a great deal of controversy. Modern historians are still divided over the responsibility of the royal family:

The traditional interpretation makes Catherine de' Medici and her Catholic advisers the principal culprits in the execution of the principal military leaders. They forced the hand of a hesitant and weak-willed king in the decision of that particular execution. This traditional interpretation has been largely abandoned by some modern historians including, among others, Janine Garrisson. However, in a more recent work than his history of the period, Holt concludes: "The ringleaders of the conspiracy appear to have been a group of four men: Henry, duke of Anjou; [[René de Birague|Chancellor Birague]]; the [[Louis Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers|duke of Nevers]], and the comte de Retz" (Gondi).<ref>Holt, Mack P. (2002), ''The Duke of Anjou and the Politique Struggle During the Wars of Religion'', Cambridge University Press,  {{ISBN|978-0-521-89278-0}}
[https://books.google.com/books?id=-OJscrcxTLsC&dq=Elizabeth+Bartholomew%27s+Day+Massacre&pg=PA26 p. 20]</ref> Apart from Anjou, the others were all Italian advisors at the French court.

According to [[Denis Crouzet]], Charles IX feared a Protestant uprising, and chose to strangle it at birth to protect his power. The execution decision was therefore his own, and not Catherine de' Medici's.<ref>Crouzet, Denis (1994), ''La Nuit de la Saint-Barthélemy: Un rêve perdu de la Renaissance'', Fayard, coll. " Chroniques ", {{ISBN|2-213-59216-0}}</ref>{{page needed|date=August 2020}}

According to Jean-Louis Bourgeon, the violently anti-Huguenot city of Paris was really responsible. He stresses that the city was on the verge of revolt. The Guises, who were highly popular, exploited this situation to put pressure on the King and the Queen Mother. Charles IX was thus forced to head off the potential riot, which was the work of the Guises, the city militia and the common people.<ref>Bourgeon, Jean-Louis (1992), ''L'assassinat de Coligny'', Genève: Droz</ref>{{page needed|date=August 2020}}

According to {{ill|Thierry Wanegffelen|fr|Thierry Wanegffelen}}, the member of the royal family with the most responsibility in this affair is Henry, Duke of Anjou, the king's ambitious younger brother. Following the failed assassination attack against the Admiral de Coligny (which Wanegffelen attributes to the Guise family and Spain), the Italian advisers of Catherine de' Medici undoubtedly recommended in the royal council the execution of about fifty Protestant leaders. These Italians stood to benefit from the occasion by eliminating the Huguenot danger. Despite the firm opposition of the Queen Mother and the King, Anjou, Lieutenant General of the Kingdom, present at this meeting of the council, could see a good occasion to make a name for himself with the government. He contacted the Parisian authorities and another ambitious young man, running out of authority and power, Duke Henri de Guise (whose uncle, the clear-sighted Charles, cardinal of Lorraine, was then detained in Rome).{{cn|date=July 2024}}

The Parisian St. Bartholomew's Day massacre resulted from this conjunction of interests, and this offers a much better explanation as to why the men of the Duke of Anjou acted in the name of the Lieutenant General of the Kingdom, consistent with the thinking of the time, rather than in the name of the King. One can also understand why, the day after the start of the massacre, Catherine de' Medici, through royal declaration of Charles IX, condemned the crimes, and threatened the Guise family with royal justice. However, when Charles IX and his mother learned of the involvement of the duke of Anjou, and being so dependent on his support, they issued a second royal declaration, which, while asking for an end to the massacres, credited the initiative with the desire of Charles IX to prevent a Protestant plot. Initially the ''coup d'état'' of the duke of Anjou was a success, but Catherine de' Medici went out of her way to deprive him from any power in France: she sent him with the royal army to remain in front of La Rochelle and then had him elected King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.<ref>Wanegffelen, Thierry (2005), ''Catherine de Médicis: Le pouvoir au féminin'', Payot {{ISBN|2228900184}}</ref>{{page needed|date=August 2020}}

===Role of the religious factions===
Traditional histories have tended to focus more on the roles of the political notables whose machinations began the massacre than the mindset of those who actually did the killing. Ordinary lay Catholics were involved in the mass killings; they believed they were executing the wishes of the king and of God. At this time, in an age before mass media, "the pulpit remained probably the most effective means of mass communication".<ref>Atkin, N. & Tallett, F. (2003) ''Priests, Prelates & People: A History of European Catholicism Since 1750'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, {{ISBN|0-19-521987-2}} hardback, p. 9;</ref>

Despite the large numbers of pamphlets and [[broadsheet]]s in circulation, literacy rates were still poor. Thus, some modern historians have stressed the critical and incendiary role that militant preachers played in shaping ordinary lay beliefs, both Catholic and Protestant.

Historian Barbara B. Diefendorf, Professor of History at [[Boston University]], wrote that [[Simon Vigor]] had "said if the King ordered the Admiral (Coligny) killed, 'it would be wicked not to kill him'. With these words, the most popular preacher in Paris legitimised in advance the events of St. Bartholomew's Day".<ref>Diefendorf, B.B. (1991) ''Beneath The Cross: Catholics & Huguenots in Sixteenth Century Paris'', Oxford University Press, {{ISBN|0-1950-7013-5}} paperback, p. 157</ref> Diefendorf says that when the head of the murdered Coligny was shown to the Paris mob by a member of the nobility, with the claim that it was the King's will, the die was cast. Another historian Mack P. Holt, Professor at [[George Mason University]], agrees that Vigor, "the best known preacher in Paris", preached sermons that were full of references to the evils that would befall the capital should the Protestants seize control.<ref>Holt, M. P. (1995) ''The French Wars of Religion 1562–1629'', Cambridge University Press, {{ISBN|0-521-35359-9}} hardback, pp. 88–89</ref> This view is also partly supported by Cunningham and Grell (2000) who explained that "militant sermons by priests such as Simon Vigor served to raise the religious and eschatological temperature on the eve of the Massacre".<ref>Cunningham, A. & Grell, O. P. (2000) ''The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine & Death in Reformation Europe'', Cambridge University Press, {{ISBN|0-521-46701-2}} paperback, p. 151</ref>

[[File:Guise.jpg|thumb|left|[[Henry, Duke of Guise]], leader of the [[Catholic League (French)|Catholic League]].]]

Historians cite the extreme tension and bitterness that led to the powder-keg atmosphere of Paris in August 1572.<ref>Holt, (1995), p. 86</ref> In the previous ten years there had already been three outbreaks of civil war, and attempts by Protestant nobles to seize power in France.<ref>Holt, (1995), p. 44</ref> Some blame the complete esteem with which the sovereign's office was held, justified by prominent French Roman Catholic theologians, and that the special powers of French Kings "...were accompanied by explicit responsibilities, the foremost of which was combating heresy".<ref>Holt (1995 ed.), p. 9</ref>

Holt, notable for re-emphasising the importance of religious issues, as opposed to political/dynastic power struggles or socio-economic tensions, in explaining the French Wars of Religion, also re-emphasised the role of religion in the St Bartholomew's Day massacre. He noted that the extra violence inflicted on many of the corpses "was not random at all, but patterned after the rites of the Catholic culture that had given birth to it". "Many Protestant houses were burned, invoking the traditional purification by fire of all heretics. Many victims were also thrown into the Seine, invoking the purification by water of Catholic baptism".<ref name="Holt87">Holt (1995 ed.), p. 87</ref> Viewed as a threat to the social and political order, Holt argues that "Huguenots not only had to be exterminated – that is, killed – they also had to be humiliated, dishonoured, and shamed as the inhuman beasts they were perceived to be."<ref name="Holt87"/>

However Raymond Mentzer points out that Protestants "could be as bloodthirsty as Catholics. Earlier Huguenot rage at Nimes (in 1567) led to... [[Michelade|the massacre of twenty-four Catholics]], mostly priests and prominent laymen, at the hands of their Protestant neighbours. Few towns escaped the episodic violence and some suffered repeatedly from both sides. Neither faith had a monopoly on cruelty and misguided fervour".<ref>Mentzer, Raymond A., ''The French Wars of Religion'' in ''The Reformation World'', Ed. Andrew Pettegree, Routledge, (2000), {{ISBN|0-415-16357-9}}, p. 332</ref>

Some, like Leonie Frieda, emphasise the element within the mob violence of the "haves" being "killed by the 'have-nots'". Many Protestants were nobles or bourgeois and Frieda adds that "a number of bourgeois Catholic Parisians had suffered the same fate as the Protestants; many financial debts were wiped clean with the death of creditors and moneylenders that night".<ref>Frieda, L. (2003) ''Catherine de Medici'', Weidenfeld & Nicolson, {{ISBN|0-7538-2039-0}}, pp. 314–316</ref> At least one Huguenot was able to buy off his would-be murderers.<ref>Knecht (2001), p. 364</ref>

The historian H.G. Koenigsberger (who until his retirement in 1984 was Professor of History at King's College, [[University of London]]) wrote that the Massacre was deeply disturbing because "it was Christians massacring other Christians who were not foreign enemies but their neighbours with which they and their forebears had lived in a Christian community, and under the same ruler, for a thousand years".<ref>Koenigsberger, H. G. (1987) ''Early Modern Europe 1500–1789'', Longman, Harlow, {{ISBN|0-582-49401-X}} paperback, p. 115</ref> He concludes that the historical importance of the Massacre "lies not so much in the appalling tragedies involved as their demonstration of the power of sectarian passion to break down the barriers of civilisation, community and accepted morality".<ref>Koenigsberger, p. 115</ref>

One historian puts forward an analysis of the massacre in terms of [[social anthropology]] – the religious historian [[Bruce Lincoln]]. He describes how the religious divide, which gave the Huguenots different patterns of dress, eating and pastimes, as well as the obvious differences of religion and (very often) class, had become a social schism or cleavage. The rituals around the royal marriage had only intensified this cleavage, contrary to its intentions, and the "sentiments of estrangement – radical otherness – [had come] to prevail over sentiments of affinity between Catholics and Protestants".<ref>Lincoln, chapter 6, pp. 89–102, quotation from p. 101</ref>

On 23 August 1997, [[Pope John Paul II]], who was in Paris for the 12th World Youth Day, issued a statement on the Massacre. He stayed in Paris for three days and made eleven speeches. According to Reuters and the Associated Press, at a late-night vigil, with the hundreds of thousands of young people who were in Paris for the celebrations, he made the following comments: "On the eve of Aug. 24, we cannot forget the sad massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, an event of very obscure causes in the political and religious history of France. ... Christians did things which the Gospel condemns. I am convinced that only forgiveness, offered and received, leads little by little to a fruitful dialogue, which will in turn ensure a fully Christian reconciliation. ... Belonging to different religious traditions must not constitute today a source of opposition and tension. On the contrary, our common love for Christ impels us to seek tirelessly the path of full unity."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/travels/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_23081997_vigil.html|title=Vigil – Address of the Holy Father – John Paul II|website=w2.vatican.va}}</ref>