Question 1
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more
convincing as an explanation of the impact of the Edict of Nantes of 1598.
Passage A
Historians have often charged that the Edict of Nantes established a ‘state within the state’ or, in other words, an independent Huguenot organisation which functioned quite separately from the rest of France. This cannot be the case. First, Huguenots were still bound to follow the laws of the land. Secondly, discussion of all political matters was denied to the Huguenots’ national and provincial assemblies. Finally, Huguenots still had to obey the King and, for refusal to do so, might be indicted on charges of treason. At most, the Edict of Nantes created a new ‘estate’: a group of persons holding special privileges. However, the Huguenot ‘estate’ lacked many characteristics of the other more established estates of the realm such as the clergy and nobility. The Huguenots neither enjoyed corporate representation nor possessed any special constitutional prerogatives. The privileged position of the Huguenots was not buttressed by any long historical tradition. Their status was of recent creation and it depended solely upon a decree of the crown. And because it was no more than an expression of royal favour, it could be revoked at the King’s pleasure. Indeed, the almost temporary character of the Edict is apparent in the fact that many of its terms were published in the form of royal brevets, letters which became automatically invalid on the sovereign’s death. Far from creating a ‘state within the state’, the Edict of Nantes only confirmed the Huguenots’ dependence on the monarch. In this respect the Huguenots were fortunate Henry never withdrew his concessions, but endeavoured instead to set an example of toleration and of even-handedness. The King took care to show equal favour to Huguenots and Catholics. In short, therefore, if the Edict of Nantes ‘settled’ the religious affairs of France, it did so only because the King wished this to be so.
Adapted from M. Rady, France: Renaissance, Religion and Recovery 1494–1610, published in 1988.
Passage B
To the Pope and to good Catholics everywhere the Edict of Nantes cast doubts on the sincerity of the King’s conversion. Nor did the enforcement of the Edict make matters any better. In several Catholic provinces the sudden public observance of Protestant worship appears an incredibly outrageous innovation. The Royal Commissioners encountered wild outbreaks of hostility and every kind of obstruction was put in the way of the Protestant worship, particularly in Burgundy, Normandy and Maine. The fierce hatreds that had lain dormant since the League were now revived. The populace defaced gravestones in Protestant cemeteries and hurled abuse at their funeral processions, even though they took place after sunset. Inevitably clashes occurred which enflamed passions still further. Henry’s conduct would have seemed more acceptable to the Catholics had he been satisfied with the enforcement of the Edict. But he went beyond the terms of the Edict and heaped favours on the Protestants. He allowed them, for example, to sell Protestant publications in Paris. The Edict expressly forbade Protestants to establish places of worship within twelve miles of Paris, but they opened one at Grigny, then another at Ablon.
Adapted from R. Mousnier, The Assassination of Henry IV, published in 1973.
[30]
Answer
