RS 27

michel de l’hôpital & christophe de thou violence; for de Thou, it was simply a “chose impossible.”108 L’Hôpital acknowledged the need to allow the worship of Protestantism, although he clearly viewed it as an error. As exhibited in the Edict of January 1562, royal pacification policy was always framed as temporary concessions to the Protestants, with no finality.109 For L’Hôpital, royal authority, in order not to be contested by the passions of men, needed to be moderate, but the prince alone could determine the scope of moderation, because power could not be appreciated except by the one who held it.110 For the Parlement, on the other hand, the unity of religion was the heart of social peace and the fundamental support of the monarchies. According to de Thou, accepting two religions was creating hate among the neighbors and the members of the same family.111 He did not accept the idea that the judges could be allowed to have a religion different from their king; religious unity was a precondition of the unity of the state.112 Both L’Hôpital and de Thou were in an unenviable situation, caught between the crown and the law court. Chancellor L’Hôpital earned enmity from the parlementaires who resented his authoritarian approach. The chancellor did not dispute the Parlement’s claim as the voice of justice, civil order, and safety of the state, but, confronted with the daunting task of ending the civil wars that were tearing the kingdomapart, he could not accept the theory that the country’s interest would be best served when the king freely submitted to the constitutional fetters. Inevitably, his centralizing reformist actions, and especially his unyielding efforts to reduce the Parlements’ authority vis-à-vis royal authority, engendered the magistrates’ deep hostility. L’Hôpital was often viewed by the Parlement as a renegade.113 He was painfully aware of the antagonism that his rigorous advocacy of unlim108 L’Hospital, Michel de 2013 p. 175; Maugis, Édouard 1913 vol. 2 p. 32-34. 109 The languages “pending the decision of a church council” or “until such time as His Majesty deems otherwise” were always present in the pacification edicts. For this point, see Roelker, Nancy Lyman 1996 p. 319. 110 Crouzet, Denis 1998 p. 375. 111 Daubresse, Sylvie 1998a p. 408, note 113. 112 Ibid. p. 409. This was a prevailing view at the time. Powis, Jonathan K. 1980 p. 180-97; Powis, Jonathan K. 1983 p. 515-30; Holt, Mack P. 1988 p. 507-23. 113 Filhol, René 1937 p. 22. 158

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=