think, are not faithful to me; insomuch that, to tell the truth, I know not at what end to begin.”  This tone of freedom and confidence had inspired Coligny with reciprocal confidence; he believed himself to have a decisive influence over the king’s ideas and conduct; and when the Protestants testified their distrust upon this subject, he reproached them vehemently for it; he affirmed the king’s good intentions and sincerity; and he considered himself in fact, said Catherine de’ Medici with temper, “a second king of France.”

How much sincerity was there about these outpourings of Charles IX. in his intercourse with Coligny, and how much reality in the admiral’s influence over the king?  We are touching upon that great historical question which has been so much disputed:  was the St. Bartholomew a design, long ago determined upon and prepared for, of Charles IX. and his government, or an almost sudden resolution, brought about by events and the situation of the moment, to which Charles IX. was egged on, not without difficulty, by his mother Catherine and his advisers?

We recall to mind here what was but lately said in this very chapter as to the condition of minds and morals in the sixteenth century, and as to the tragic consequences of it.  Massacre, we add no qualifying term to the word, was an idea, a habit, we might say almost a practice, familiar to that age, and one which excited neither the surprise nor the horror which are inseparable from it in our day.  So little respect for human life and for truth was shown in the relations between man and man!  Not that those natural sentiments, which do honor to the human race, were completely extinguished in the hearts of men; they reappeared here and there as a protest against the vices and the crimes of the period; but they were too feeble and too rare to struggle effectually against the sway of personal passions and interests, against atrocious hatreds and hopes, against intellectual aberrations and moral corruption.  To betray and to kill were deeds so common that they caused scarcely any astonishment, and that people were almost resigned to them beforehand.  We have cited fifteen or twenty cases of the massacres which in the reign of Charles IX., from 1562 to 1572, grievously troubled and steeped in blood such and such a part of France, without leaving any lasting traces in history.  Previously to the massacre called the St. Bartholomew, the massacre of Vassy is almost the only one which received and kept its true name.  The massacre of Vassy was, undoubtedly, an accident, a deed not at all forecast or prepared for.  The St. Bartholomew massacre was an event for a long time forecast and announced, promised to the Catholics and thrown out as a threat to the Protestants, written beforehand, so to speak, in the history of the religious wars of France, but, nevertheless, at the moment at which it was accomplished, and in the mode of its accomplishment, a deed unexpected so far as the majority of the victims were concerned, and a cause of contest even amongst its originators.  Accordingly it was, from the very first, a subject of surprise and horror, throughout Europe as well as in France; not only because of the torrents of blood that were shed, but also because of the extraordinary degree in which it was characterized by falsehood and ferocious hatred.