Question 1
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more
convincing as an explanation of the effect of the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.
Passage A
For the Protestants, the massacres proved to be catastrophic. The victims of the massacres, however, formed only the tip of the iceberg of Huguenot casualties. The real impact of the St Bartholomew’s massacres was felt less in the actual killings than in the defections that took place over the next few months. The massacres not only put a permanent end to the growth of the reformed faith in France, they brought about an immediate and catastrophic decline in the numbers, strength, and zeal of the Protestant movement.
The intellectual and psychological impact of the massacres on the Huguenots was just as great, however. The optimism of the 1560s, when growth and expansion of the reformed movement was at its height, paled significantly in the wake of St Bartholomew’s night. Not only had the king turned against the Huguenots, but to many it seemed as if God had abandoned them as well. When the Calvinist minister Hugues Sureau renounced Protestantism after the massacres, he made it clear that he considered the massacres to be a sign of God’s displeasure with the Protestant movement. Despair and impotence were the principal feelings of many Huguenots, who must have realised how powerless they were to defend themselves against the overwhelming majority of Catholics in the kingdom.
Adapted from: M. P. Holt, The French Wars of Religion, 1562–1629, published in 2005.
Passage B
French Protestantism was decapitated. Of the principal leaders, only Henry of Navarre had been spared – and he thought it prudent to renounce his faith. Many humbler Huguenots followed suit, fearing for themselves and their families, seeking Catholic baptism.
It is clear, however, that there was a significant change in French Protestantism as a political and military force as a result of the massacre. In the first three civil wars, in all the confusion of motives and varying interests of family and locality, there can be seen a residual loyalty to the crown: it was surely not the crown, as an institution, that was amiss, but its policies. The enemy was the House of Guise and its associates, seen as aliens, indifferent to the traditions of France. But now the crown was the enemy. Future wars would be fought first against the authority of the king who had sanctioned the massacre, then against his successor. Henry III would be suspect or damned in Huguenot eyes by his association with the theology and the religious and foreign policies of the House of Guise. Resistance acquired a sterner tone, a more radical mindset. The more the crown pressed, the more determined would be the response.
Adapted from: G. Treasure, The Huguenots, published in 2013.
[30]
Answer
