St. Bartholomew's Massacre

[Zeno]

I am posting some links to something that took place almost 432 (in 1572) years ago (Anniversary date is August 24). It involves a host of issues but at the base was politics, or was it religion, or perceived wrongs, or manipulation of people by the influential, or was it a combination of many things?, or........?

Bartholomew #1 (http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0824almanac.htm)

Bartholomew # 2 (http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/StBartho.html)

Bartholomew # 3 (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/barth.htm)

I posted these links with a short note under another thread but decided to post a separate thread for a general discussion if people wished to debate this wonderful event in human history. It is close to the Anniversary date so that is something we can all celebrate, possibly by singing the Te Deum and lighting a few bonfires.

Le Misanthrope

[Taxman]

The sources seem unfairly biased against the old Catholic church. The Reformation was much more complicated than an effort to reform the "corrupt practices of the Catholic church." Many of the people who first called for reform did not even want a split with the church. Furthermore, while this event was tragic to be sure, many protestant sects were quite violent themselves against Catholics and also against what they themselves saw as heretics (ie witches).

I read a very good book on this period of history (Called The Crises of the Seventeenth Century (obviously focused a little later than this event) in which the author made the excellent point that these sort of events do not occur without some kind of popular approval. When they do occur, they are often much more about intellectual and societal differences, which are expressed with a religious face. Thus it is quite unlikely that a pure manipulation by people in power was the cause (Hitler would never have gotten anywhere if some underlying feelings were not already present). This is easily illustrated by the continuation of the killings even after the royal edict to stop.

Ultimately, as is often the case in historical tragedies, it was the combination of many factors that resulted in the massacre. Most specifically social divisions were likely a primary influence. Often the repressed lower classes were prone to react explosively when they saw potential support for an effort to achieve social change (of whatever kind). Early in the reformation, many peasants rioted against both the church and their local lords, thinking they had the support of such thinkers as Martin Luther. Luther was in fact a great supporter of secular principalities however, and condemned such behavior. To be sure, there was a direct cause of the massacre, but it probably was mostly the spark put to the powderkeg, as is usually true in cases such as this one.

This response is mostly off the cuff as I do not ahave a ton of experience with this specific incident. It would be interesting to find a source that covers this incident in greater depth and with a broader social context in mind.

[Taxman]

You have prompted me to look into possibly writing a paper on the subject next quarter. Thanks for the idea!

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
You have prompted me to look into possibly writing a paper on the subject next quarter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you. Hope it is fun and educational. Good Luck.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

The bias of the first link is evident. But most of the facts are still valid.

And it is true that the 'reformation' was a reform movement within the 'church' itself, at least initially, but then took on a life of its own. And many people, some powerful, for example German princes, used the Reformation to further political and economic goals or independence or other goals and issues. Other things accumulated on the reformation ball once it got rolling. There is a lesson in that in relation to history and for our own times as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Early in the reformation, many peasants rioted against both the church and their local lords, thinking they had the support of such thinkers as Martin Luther. Luther was in fact a great supporter of secular principalities however, and condemned such behavior.


[/ QUOTE ]


In fact Luther wrote a pamphelt condemning the brutal tactics of some Protestants. Certain German Princes also protected him from the Catholic Church.


But the main issue of why this all happened and was so easily instigated by people in power and then carried out by the populace in an eager manner is something that is disturbing. And it is not just an isolated happening nor confined to primarily religious or political themes though that is a usual feature.

Something very fundamental is going on. So far, everyone has seemed to miss it. It can be stated in one simple sentence of ten words or less as to why this occurred. Does anyone know? It ties in directly as to why so many Jews were stuck in ovens.

It is a very disturbing thing to say. I am sure that many that post here know the 'answer' that I am referring to.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

"Something very fundamental is going on. So far, everyone has seemed to miss it. It can be stated in one simple sentence of ten words or less as to why this occurred. Does anyone know? It ties in directly as to why so many Jews were stuck in ovens.

It is a very disturbing thing to say. I am sure that many that post here know the 'answer' that I am referring to."


Zeno,

I can think of a lot of things that were "going on" in such instances as this, but I am not sure what you are getting at first and foremost. Maybe I am missing it.


Human willingness to brutalize others for group gain (tribalism)?

Manifestation of the dark side of human nature?

Manifestation of the lower side of human nature?

Inflation of the ego via complete domination over others?

Fanaticism?

Mercenary-ism?

What?

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
It ties in directly as to why so many Jews were stuck in ovens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I said something along those lines somewhere in my response.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Manifestation of the dark side of human nature?


[/ QUOTE ]


In my opinion it is even more ugly (or specific) than this.

This Massacre occurred (and many similar acts) because people enjoy doing it.

The act(s) are made easier and 'justified' in the human mind by religious and political issues and intertwined in this are fanaticism and the madness of crowds ( Madness of Crowds (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/051788433X/qid=1092937274/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/104-0826448-4537523?v=glance&s=books) ) but the fundamental theme is one of calculated cruelty that is inflicted with joy.

I am not saying that I am 100% correct in this or that this is all that is involved. But I do think it is a viable hypothesis for the major reason why most of these incidences occur. Especially when religious issues are involved because religion is based, in my opinion, on ignorance and fear - the father of cruelty.

Were the ‘warriors’ that, with calculated cruelty, piloted the planes into buildings on 9/11 ‘secretly’ filled with a certain joy (pleasure) over their deeds (aside from any reward in the hereafter)? What of the Nazis that gassed the Jews? - Or a Catholic that kills a protestant; or a Protestant that kills a catholic; or someone torturing a heretic; or killing an infidel; or a group of people burning a ‘witch’. The time-honored excuses make it easier, but it is done for sheer pleasure.

I could be wrong - but I don't think so. Are Humans so macabre? - So sadistic? Being a misanthrope I am bias and say yes. I am hoping for some input from others for a balance to this thesis.


-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

I agree that is part of it; just not sure as to the degree. Hopefully it is somewhat less than what you are suggesting.

[Chris Alger]

Odd bias in two of your links. The first sentence of your third link is, at most, a half-truth, given the belated orders of the French court to stop the masssacre ("So it was determined to exterminate all the Protestants, and the plan was approved by the queen.") I believe the historical consensus is that the massacre resulted from an assasination plot that spun out of control. One Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13333b.htm) take is also interesting: "Thus we see that the idea of a summary execution of the leaders of Protestantism was in the air from 1560 to 1570; moreover it was conformable to the doctrine of political murder as it flourished during the sixteenth century when the principles of social morality and Christian politics elaborated by the theology of the Middle Ages, were replaced by the lay and half-pagan doctrine of Machiavellianism, proclaiming the right of the strongest or the most crafty." When cornered, pin it on Machiavelli.

The massacre was an atrocity but it's hard to see how any of the major religious factions maintained the moral high ground. Apart from the Huegenot rioting, sacking of churches and iconoclasm that so enraged 16th century Parisians, the subsequent legacy of European protestantism isn't exactly untarnished. Indeed, Catherine was probably the most accomodating of the French Catholic nobility. (Certainly in stark contrast to Phillip II of Spain. OTOH, one would much rather be accused of withcraft before the Spanish Inquisition than in France).

The political ambitions of rulers, their ability to raise armies and early modern warfighting technology played more decisive roles than religious differences during the "wars of religion." The more common thread of the period was the low threshhold of justifiable state violence. When societies accept that, finding a suitable other to slaughter becomes easy. I daresay that the impulse toward righteous war today is more embedded in the attitudes of American protestants than the Vatican, or indeed by the followers of most other religions, including Islam.

[Zeno]

I was going to post the link to the article in the Catholic encyclopedia but stopped at three web links. Thanks for including, in your response, what I probably should have included in the initial post.


[ QUOTE ]
The political ambitions of rulers, their ability to raise armies and early modern warfighting technology played more decisive roles than religious differences during the "wars of religion."

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had to tier the causes would you, in general, put it so:

Political
Religious
Economic
‘Other’

Of course the causes are often all intermixed.

[ QUOTE ]
The more common thread of the period was the low threshhold of justifiable state violence.


[/ QUOTE ]


Very interesting comment.


A few side notes:

War is usually an official act of a state, mob violence, however instigated, is of another character and flavor – and in general is more cruel, warfare usually has some semblance of rules that mobs lose all sense of. And loosely organized militias or armed gangs can probably be classified somewhere in the middle of this sliding scale.

On the other hand, organized and bureaucratic cruelty is usually longer lasting, more efficient, and inflicts more pain, torture, and death than the short bursts of mob violence or even warfare.

But I am wandering a bit off topic.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

^

[Dominic]

There's an aboslutely wonderful French movie based on the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre called "Queen Margot" that was released in 1994 and stars Isabelle Adjani. It's a great movie and anyone interested in this time in history should see it!



http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1800228145&cf=info&intl=us

[Chris Alger]

This thread caught my eye because I just happened to be watching a series of lectures on "Europe and the Wars of Religion" It emphasizes how all various of these factors tend to erupt and spill over into each other in seemingly unpredictable ways, ways that certainly weren't predicted by the major actors.

Each of the conflicts has its own history, but they commonly involved competition over the fantastic new power of centralized states and the power and dislocations caused by new economies. Religious factionalism and fanaticism provided an uncontrollable catalyst that made these fairly common kinds of political disputes more likely to break into war. It then made the wars harder to resolve. There were cross currents: rulers caught off guard by new religious ideologies calling for disobedience to the state, as well as religious minorities surprised by state persecution, learned to counter with great effect with their own pandering and forging of alliances with co-religionists. So it's hard to say that religion "caused" the bloodshed but it seems to me that better religion (or no religion) certainly could have prevented or reduced it.

I wouldn't hold up this period as a good example of the barbarism of mobs combared to armies. French warfare almost certainly killed more civilians than French mobs, if you include starvation and disease during seiges of Huegenot strongholds. 30-40% of the population of Germany perished during the 30 Years War, a higher percentage than died during WWII.

[Zeno]

That was a very enjoyable post with an interesting expansion on some key points and issues. Thanks for your eloquent responses and participation in this thread.

The lecture series you mention sounds very worthwhile. Similar items have caught my eye, usually advertised in certain magazines, but I always pass off on them not knowing the quality of the product.

-Zeno