The Gravedigger: An examination of Protestant Burial Rites Applied to Eye-Witness Accounts of the

St. Bartholomew’s Day MassacresKaitlin O’Brien

James Madison UniversityHistory 395

Monsieur Pierre de La Place was not only dead. He was murdered. Earlier that day, the

magistrate had been lured out of his house, taken far from his city, and stabbed by dagger

wielding rioters. That was what awaited most victims of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres

in France, 1572. The killing was horrendous. Protestants lay dying on the roads, the streets were

soaked in blood, and bodies were left to rot in the gutters. La Place’s body, like so many others,

was desecrated and thrown into the Seine. It was as close to a burial as he could expect at the

hands of his killers. Burial did not matter to the Catholics. Their aim was to rid France of

pollution. What would it matter if the Protestant dead were not laid to rest properly? The

Protestants certainly cared, but there was little they could do to correct the situation. If the

survivors who fled dared venture back to the scene of the massacre, they too would be killed. But

there had to be some proper sendoff. The Parisian graveyards were out of the question, and there

was no way to obtain the bodies to bury them elsewhere. The only solution lay in metaphorical

funerals, deploying the power of the spoken word. If the Protestant mourners could not bury their

dead in soil, they could bury them in words and deeds befitting of a martyr. They held funeral

rites with the legends of the deceased and created a graveyard of stories and letters.1

Historians agree that at least 2,000, and possibly as much as 10,000, Protestants were

killed on St. Bartholomew’s Day, 1572. The killings began with the attempted assassination of

1 For more information on the psychology behind funerals and society, consult, T. O’Rourke, Spitzberg, H. Brian, Hannawa, and F. Annegret, “The Good Funeral: Toward an Understanding of Funeral Participation and Satisifaction,” Death Studies 35 no. 8, September 2001: 700; and Kastenbaum: 6. For more on the psychological need for funerals, consult, Paul Giblin, and Andrea Hug, “The Psychology of Funeral Rituals,” Liturgy 21 no.1 (2006): 11-9; and Erik Seeman, Death in the New World,

1

General Gaspard de Coligny two days before on August 22. Coligny was an important leader to

the Protestant, or Huguenot2 cause in France. He was also an influential member in King Charles

IX’s council. The young king was impressionable, impatient, and most dangerously of all,

enraptured with Coligny’s ideas. Charles IX was on the verge of agreeing to help Protestant

rebels in Spain when the Queen Mother, Catherine de Medici, apparently ordered the

assassination of Coligny. Coligny survived, but not for long. Two days later, she and other

important councilors to the king, convinced Charles that the Huguenots, led by Coligny and other

nobility, were planning a government takeover. Charles eagerly took the advice of his councilors,

and ordered the execution of many of the leaders, including Coligny. Coligny and others were

hunted down and killed. So were thousands of followers. Catholics mistakenly believed that their

king had given orders to rid France of the Huguenots and took to slaughtering their Protestant

neighbors when they witnessed the assassination of Coligny. The Catholics were so intent on

their righteous mission, they did not even spare time to differentiate between man, woman, or

child. A few Huguenots managed to escape the slaughter and took shelter in countries with

Protestant sympathies. By the time the sun set on Paris on August 24, the Massacres would

spread to the rest of France, and thousands would be dead. In the aftermath, no one could lay

claim to the deceased. Even worse, the living could not collectively mourn the deaths of their

loved ones. As it was, survivors were probably terrified by the sudden and violent nature of the

massacres. The possibilities available to Protestant communities for coping with the losses were

bleak.3

All societies must confront death by coping with it. In practice, the coping methods are

sometimes opposite and contradictory; but because of the polluting effect of dead bodies,

2 Seeman, 29-33.3 Seeman, 38-44.

2

disposal is essential. Despite the pollution, most cultures seem to go through great lengths to

ensure that bodies are respectfully interred. Ritualized burials facilitate the separation of the

corpse from the society that claims concern for its soul. This type of separation results in unique

burials and practices that are indicative to how a society lives. Scholars who study “deathways,”

have used burials as a lens to examine how societies orient themselves around life and death.

These researchers have discovered burials are not only performed for religious benefit, but for

psychological advantage as well.4

Recent psychological studies show that coping collectively with loss is essential; it

provides closure and allows the living to move on. Coping does not only apply to individuals and

small groups though, it applies to societies as well. Psychologist Robert Kastenbaum, for

example, contends that the health of a society can be determined by collective devotion offered

at ritualized funerals. Other scholarship has focused on individual practices that take place at

these sites of collective mourning. Survivors mourn and weep publicly, receive emotional

support from others similarly affected and thereby achieve closure.5

Apprehending the level of care that survivors of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres

displayed as they mourned the deaths of their loved ones, so as to achieve closure, requires that

historians reorient themselves towards the deathway accounts that are contained in the reformist

works of Protestant theologians. Historians have long read these narratives as propaganda. If

they are viewed as deathway accounts, however, the burial in question had to be proper,

respectful, and Christian in all ways possible without the slightest hint of Catholic taint.

Catholics advocate a far more lavish pre- and post-mortem send-off. Both parts deal with

their concerns for the future of the soul, as well as the support of the community of the living as

4 Seeman, 38-44.5 To see more of Barabara B. Diefendorf’s credentials, visit “Barbara Diefendorf,” Boston University—History.

3

they coped. Catholics could theoretically choose between damnation and salvation; therefore,

dying correctly was particularly important. In Catholic doctrine, the soul of the dead can move to

three places: Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. In the case of Purgatory, the living can help the

deceased move onto Heaven, even before their death. In terms of practice, this was most

commonly done through the purchase of indulgences.6 Catholic funerals, which began with the

sacrament of last rites, were riddled with prayers and sermons. Deathbeds became the final

chance many had to choose between good and evil. In order to help loved ones in this battle,

friends and family would gather around the deathbed and offer both prayers and encouragement.

A priest would also be present to aid the dying person. The priest would first offer the body of

Christ to the afflicted, and then apply holy oil. Once the dying person had passed on, Catholics

would begin the funeral to aid both the deceased, and to help the living cope with loss.7

Upon death, the body would first be washed and shrouded for the burial by the women of

the family. A wake was held either at the church or in the home of the deceased immediately

after the death. During these gatherings, friends and relatives would reminisce about the

deceased’s life to ease the pain of loss. The official funeral would be held after the wake,

proceeded by a procession to the church if the body had not yet been moved there. Processions

were often lavish, with prayers, hymns, and sermons, especially in the case of the rich who could

afford to pay people to pray for their souls.8

6 To read more on martyrization in the wake of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, read Barbara B. Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991), 107-136; and Robert M. Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Masacres 1572-1573, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), 1-6.7 For more information on martyrdom and the Protestant cause in France, consult Diefendorf, 107-108; and Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 1-69. For more information on political propaganda and the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, read, Kingdon, 70-219. 8 To read more on Simon Goulart, consult, Barbara B. Diefendorf, “Memoirs of the State of France under Charles IX,” in The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, A Brief History with Documents, ed. by Barbara B. Diefendorf (Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2009): 101; and Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 2-6.

4

The body would then be laid to rest on hallow ground. This would usually be either

inside a church for the wealthy, and in a churchyard for those who were not so affluent. Many

Catholics were buried underground in churches, as close to the worshippers as possible to remind

the living of their duty to pray for all souls. Because of this, the dead remained ever present in

the Catholic mind, even after burial rituals were completed. It was still the duty of the living to

help souls move out of Purgatory. This aid prompted Catholics to refer to the deceased as being

present in a physical sense. The graveyard, for instance, was even thought to be the Earthly

location of Purgatory. 9

For Protestants, it was not possible to aid the dead; Protestant doctrine rejects the idea of

Purgatory altogether. It is understood that mankind cannot reach the perfection required for

salvation outlined in the Bible. This means that the fate of the soul varies according to doctrine.

In Calvinism, the most popular form of Protestantism in France, the soul is either saved or

dammed. Indeed, most Protestants considered Catholic burial traditions as superstition that had

no effect on the dead or living. Prayers and hymns to help the soul were useless; as were the final

rites a priest can offer to the dying. Since the living could not help the deceased achieve

salvation, there was a separation between the living and the dead. This led to a bigger emphasis

on resurrection in hopes that the deceased had made it to Heaven and into God’s hands. Once in

God’s hands, the dead were no longer regarded as physically present.10

The emphasis on this resurrection inspired a simple type of funeral. Calvinists in

particular kept to the bare minimum with their burials. They stripped Catholic traditions, which

they mostly regarded as superstition, down to the core function. The body was shrouded, taken to

9 Men, usually from the military, armed with a harquebus or early gun created in 15th century Spain. Definition from, Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. “Harquebus,” accessed November 21, 2013. 10 Excerpt from, Simon Goulart “Memoirs of the State of France under Charles IX,” in The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, A Brief History with Documents, ed. by Barbara B. Diefendorf (Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2009): 101-104.

5

a churchyard, and buried. Mourners who participated in funerals were expected to restrain

themselves during the burial. They were not to sing hymns, ring bells, or request sermons. The

idea was to put everything into God’s hands. To show that trust, mourners had to avoid relapsing

into old, Catholic traditions.11

In theory, because the fate of the dead was placed into God’s hands, Protestants should

not have needed funerals at all. However, Protestants maintained certain traditions because of the

necessity for closure for the living. Therefore, in practice, they did not always adhere to Doctrine

in funerals. Most of these practices were non-religious and cultural. They were embedded in

Catholic traditions. Examples include sermons, singing of hymns, wakes and ringing bells to

signal a death. Even deathbed gatherings became commonplace for Protestants. Such practices

inevitably exasperated Protestant ministers, making it impossible to hold a pure, Protestant

funeral according to doctrine. However, ministers began to accept that Catholic funeral practices

were there to stay. Some ministers even began to embrace the intertwining of tradition, giving

funeral sermons in which they were paid efforts.12

Nevertheless, there still remained fundamental differences in Protestant and Catholic

burials. Protestant funerals did not pray for the soul. The emphasis on resurrection meant

funerals were more for the living than the dead. They gave the living a sense of closure, and were

meant to accomplish nothing else. Also, Protestants were not as concerned about where the body

was buried. It made no difference to a predestined soul if his remains were interred in a

churchyard or in some unmarked grave in the woods. Despite the indifference towards earthly

remains, Protestant survivors of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres were still concerned with

11 Exceprt from, Simon Goulart, 104-108. 12 For more information about martyrology in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, see, Barbara B. Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross Catholics and Huguenots in Sixteenth Century Paris, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991): 107-136, and, Robert M. Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 2-69.

6

what happened to the corpses of their dead. Doctrine holds that there is nothing the living can do

to help or harm the deceased. Even desecrating the body will not condemn the soul. However, it

is apparent from deathway narratives that Protestants did care about what happened to the bodies

of their dead, even though they had no remains to bury and no apparent support from the French

monarchy. When it came to coping, the Protestant community was left on their own. Burying the

dead became the job of Protestant leadership abroad.13

An example of a deathway narrative in which the Protestant leadership takes particular

care to assist the surviving congregation in mourning their dead is found in the Simon Goulart’s

account of Pierre de la Place’s death at the hands of Catholic rioters. Simon Goulart was a

Protestant minister born in 1543. Despite being born in France, he spent most of his life in

Geneva as a Calvinist Pastor. When the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres broke out, Goulart

was visiting France and only narrowly managed to escape back to Geneva. In the wake of the

Massacres, Goulart began to collect accounts from survivors, compiling them into pamphlets. In

1577, he published these pamphlets into a book called Mémoires de l’estat de France sous

Charles IX, or Memoirs of France under Charles IX,. He later released an expanded version of

this work a year later in 1578. These accounts are unique because they offer consolation to the

living in place of a funeral. Goulart manages this by applying traditional, martyr techniques to

the accounts he records.

Martyrization of the victims is an important realization that Barbara B. Diefendorf and

Robert M. Kingdon have noticed in the course of their research. Both Diefendorf and Kingdon

are experts in the French Wars of religion, and both have written widely on the subject. Kingdon

was a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin—Madison before he passed away in

13 For more on propaganda use during the St. Bartholomew’s Massacres, read, Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 2-6 and 20-220; and Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross, 168-170.

7

2010. He specialized in the Reformation.14 Likewise, Diefendorf is a professor of European

history at Boston University, a position she has held since 1980.15 In her work, Beneath the

Cross, Diefendorf acknowledges that many of the eyewitness accounts of the survivors are

written in the Christian tradition of martyrs. Diefendorf argues that this is so because the victims

have in fact been turned into examples. In the wake of the massacres, many Huguenots were

prepared to convert back to Catholicism. In order to prevent this, those who recorded the

accounts made the martyrized dead into heroes with a promise of salvation. Generations of

Huguenots after the massacres are to look at the victims and embody the courage and faith they

had in the face of death.16

Likewise, Kingdon also argues that the stories surrounding the massacres are also written

in the tradition of martyrdom. However, Kingdon argues that people who collected the accounts

of the massacres had an entirely political purpose. The accounts would serve as Protestant

propaganda against the Catholics. Kingdon believes that the reason for dispensing such

propaganda was not only to further the Protestant cause, but to question traditional ideals about

government as well. The accounts would serve as propaganda to gain sympathy for the

Protestant cause from both moderate Catholics and other Protestants, and to challenge the

traditional belief that monarchy was the best form of government. 17

14 To read more on propaganda and martyrdom in the wake of the massacres, read, Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres 2-220 ; and Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross, 107-132 and 168-170.15 To better understand Protestant burial traditions, consult, Simon S. Kwan, “Hope for the Dead: Protestant Death Rituals and the Psychology of the Continuing Bond,” International Journal of the Humanities 8 no. 9, 2010; Craig Kolofsky, “Honor and Violence in German Lutheran funerals in the Confessional Age,” Social History 20, 1995; and Keith P. Luria, “Separated by Death? Burials, Cemeteries and Confessional boundaries in seventeenth-century France,” French Historical Studies 24, no. 2, spring 2001. 16 Goulart, 105. 17 For more on martyrology, read, Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres 2-69; and Diefendorf, 107-136; for more on Protestant burial traditions, read Erik R. Seeman, Death in the New World, (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010): 36; Kwan, 7-11; Kolofsky, 318-328; and Luria, 194-197. To read more on Christian resurrection, consult, Joseph M. Gonzales, “Sleeping Bodies, Jubilant Souls: The Fate of the Dead in Sweden 1400-1700,” Canadian Journal of History 40, no.2 (August 2005): 207.

8

There is no doubt that Kingdon is very much correct, especially in Goulart’s political

motives. The title itself even names the king. Knowing its contents could make Goulart’s work

seem like an accusation to Charles IX and his government. However, those same techniques

employed to make martyrs out of victims also bury those same victims. It is my contention that

Goulart’s book also created, in practice, a suitable memorial for the dead of the massacres as

well. He intended to help Protestant mourners bury them. The story of Pierre de La Place in

particular stood out as an excellent example of a martyrized tale that both Kingdon and

Diefendorf study in their works. Goulart’s lengthily and gory account of La Place’s death paints

him as the ideal Christian surrounded by his family and his community, thereby assuring him the

necessary burial. 18

Monsieur Pierre de La Place was a magistrate in the Cour des Aides, a court concerned

with taxation disputes. Simon Goulart reports that on Sunday morning, the king’s harquebusiers19

led by one Captain Michael told La Place of the king’s orders to rid France of the Huguenots.

The captain reassured the magistrate that he (Captain Michael) had been sent by the king to spare

La Place from the violence. However, Captain Michael was also ordered to see all the gold and

silver in the house. La Place, affronted by the gall of the captain, ordered him out. It then

occurred to La Place that some greater brutality was at work. He left his home to seek shelter but,

finding none, was forced to return. La Place arrived back to find most of his household very

upset. His wife in particular showed distress about their plight. La Place reprimanded her, telling

her that it was the duty of a Christian to face such trials submissively, as it was God’s will. He

then led what was left of his household in Sunday exhortation.20

18 Goulart, 107-108.19 For more on martyrdom, read; Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 2-69; and Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross, 107-136. To read the silk merchant’s account in full, consult, Goulart, 107-108. 20 Goulart, 105.

9

Later that day, a Sir de Seneçay, the king’s provost, arrived along with several archers.

He had been given strict instructions by the king to safely accompany La Place to the Louvre,

where La Place was expected to inform King Charles IX of Huguenot affairs. La Place was

understandably reluctant. He feared going through the mobs in the street. However, Seneçay

insisted that La Place go. To reassure the hesitant magistrate, Seneçay offered to give La Place

the protection of a well-known guard so that he should come to no harm. Upon hearing this,

Captain Pazou volunteered to accompany the magistrate. If anything, La Place’s unwillingness

was even more resolved. Pazou was a reputed troublemaker. In the end La Place had no choice

but to leave with the captain. Before his departure, La Place’s wife cast herself at Seneçay’s feet

and begged him to go with her husband instead. La Place gently remonstrated his wife. Before

leaving, La Place noticed a paper cross on the hat of his eldest son. His son had undoubtedly put

the cross on to blend in with the Catholic rioters and thus spare his own life. The magistrate

sternly ordered the boy to remove the it. When he finally left, La Place kissed his wife goodbye,

reminded his family to put their faith in God, and followed Pazou without apparent fear.

Moments later he was stabbed to death by men lying in wait for him outside. After he was killed

La Place’s body was smeared with feces and thrown into the Seine.21

The description of La Place’s death, as noted by both Kingdon and Diefendorf, is typical

of martyr tradition. La Place keeps faith consistently throughout the account, despite the fact that

those around him have doubts. He does not question the will of his God even though there is a

massacre outside his door. La Place also acknowledges himself as a man marked for death, yet

faces it bravely. He does not beg mercy from Pazou nor does he show fear when he follows the

captain outside. There is no doubt that Simon Goulart has another agenda, as Kingdon in

21 Goulart, 102-106. To see more on Protestant ideals on martyrdom, read Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 4-6; and Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross, 107-136. Find La Place’s account and the silk merchants account in, Goulart, 102-106 and; Goulart, 107-108 respectively.

10

particular acknowledges. Gouarlt had political motives. He desired not only to spread the tale of

the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres to the rest of Europe, but to sow dissent and suspicion

amongst his readers regarding monarchial governments and the papacy as brutal and corrupt. In

order to accomplish this, he martyrizes the victims of the massacres and vilifies the French

government.22

The stories do martyrize the subjects, of that there is no doubt. And they do serve a

political purpose as well. But, there is a primary task that served the Protestant reader. Goulart

honors the dead in place of a traditional funeral. However, before exploring this theory, it is

important to understand the beliefs Goulart may have had. As a Protestant minister, Goulart

probably held certain views for funerals. We have no way of knowing what these views were,

and if he supported Catholic traditions in Protestant burials. Goulart does keep to the bear

minimum in his passages, as most of the accounts are straight forward. And though the accounts

are written in martyr tradition, they are also free of unnecessary embellishments, like overused

dialogue or detail and imagery. Goulart also keeps his focus on the living because, as Kingdon

and Diefendorf have discovered, Goulart wishes to spread propaganda about the massacres, not

simply remember the fallen. If Goulart were to employ those same techniques he used for

propaganda, then he probably did intend to bury the dead.23

At the same time, we might also wonder why Goulart would bother to give the victims of

the massacre a proper burial. As a Protestant, Goulart was most likely sympathetic to the

Huguenot cause, and sickened by what he heard. Though as we have seen with both Kingdon and

Diefendorf, Goulart’s motives behind recording these accounts was to spread propaganda and the

22 To see more on Goulart’s intended audience for his propaganda, consult Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 1-6 and 70-220.23 To see La Fosse’s complete commentary on witches and warlocks in Charles IX’s court, consult, La Fosse, “The Supposed Influence of Coligny at Court,” inThe French Wars of Religion, Selected Documents, ed. by David Potter (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1997): 132. For more information on Protestant doctrine, see, Seeman, 38-44.

11

stories of the massacres. But if Huguenot mourners and Protestants over the rest of Europe were

in shock, spreading this propaganda would be entirely useless. For the Huguenot survivors in

particular, it would be difficult to find closure over the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres.

Goulart would not only have to enflame his readers to take action, he would have to encourage

them to move on as well. If we look at Goulart’s collection as a deathways account, his double

motives start to make sense. The accounts spread the doubts Goulart hoped to sow, but they

provide closure through burial of the dead first.24

As we have already seen in La Place’s story, the magistrate did not receive a proper

burial. Sadly, La Place was one amongst many. Goulart’s Memoirs of the State of France under

Charles IX display a wide array of Huguenots who were killed, none of whom received funeral

rites. Because it was impractical for the living Huguenots to honor the dead physically, they did

so metaphorically by means of relating the accounts in the martyrized custom explained by

Kingdon and Diefendorf. These same themes also echo Protestant funeral traditions, namely

separation and resurrection, familial and societal roles in the funeral, and the use of sermons as

lessons. These themes also serve the same purpose in Goulart’s funeral as they would in a real

one.

The focus of most Protestant burials is the resurrection of the deceased. In Calvinist

doctrine especially this holds true because Protestants reject the idea of Purgatory. In Catholic

funerals, there are several traditions that are observed to help the dead move to Heaven.

Examples of this range from giving money to the poor in exchange for prayers to the deceased,

final rites, and prayers said over the body. There is a bigger emphasis on the present because it is

the duty of the living to intervene on behalf of the dead. That is not so in Protestant traditions.

The dead have either moved onto Heaven, or have been damned. Therefore, Protestant doctrine

24 La Fosse, 132. To read more on Catholic opinions on Protestants, consult Davis, 211-212, and 223-226.

12

focuses on the resurrection of the deceased in hopes that they have made it to Heaven. Evidence

of this exists in the fact that most Protestant funerals are closed casket, physically separating the

living from the dead.25

Pierre de La Place’s account shows a clear example of this separation. If we read the

account through Kingdon’s and Diefendorf’s martyr lens, we can already see that La Place is

very much removed from the living, as he seems ready for death. He keeps faith, remains calm,

and is brave in the face of death until the last minute, as he leaves “with a light heart” before he

is killed.26 Such faith and courage make for the ideal martyr, as King and Diefendorf have

pointed out. However, La Place is the only character in the deathway account who shows this

type of idealism. Compared to the rest of the characters, including his distressed wife, terrified

son, and the impatient soldiers, La Place appears very saintly, almost unreal. The idea of

resurrection in most Christian doctrines holds that the deceased will arise again as a perfect

human being. La Place embodies this idealism not only because he is a heroic martyr in his own

right, but because he is a heroic martyr compared to the imperfect, living humans around him.27

La Place is not the only Huguenot to face death with courage and faith. Another account

Goulart takes note of tells of a silk merchant and his wife forcibly driven from their room by the

nephews of the wife. The husband is terrified, and the nephews themselves are malicious. The

wife, however, remains calm and even tells her husband to keep faith before the boys club them

and dump the bodies in a watering trough.28 Just as with La Place’s story, the unnamed wife is

the perfect example of a martyr. She is brave in the face of death, and unshakable in her trust in

25 For more on propaganda in the wake of the massacres, consult, Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 2-6 and 70-220; and Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross, 168-170.26 Goulart, 106. 27 For more on Protestant deathbed behavior, read Seeman, 40-41. For Goulart’s full account of La Place’s death, read Goulart, 101-106.28 Goulart, 106-108.

13

God. However, this account offers another interesting piece of information. Before leaving the

house to confront her fate, the wife gives a silver belt to a washerwoman she is apparently

acquainted with. In a more practical sense, this might be to prevent her killers from acquiring

valuable property. Though the fact that Goulart bothers to make note of this is significant. Why

he does, I cannot say. A possible explanation may again lie with the separation of the living from

the dead. The wife is leaving behind her earthly possessions and, as such, she is not only

mentally prepared to be reunited with her creator, but physically as well.29

Martyrs like La Place are also separated from the living in the sense that they have

decided to put their faith in God’ hands. This is a popular terminology used in Protestant funerals

no actions before or after death could determine the fate of a soul. As such, there was no choice

but to put all trust in God. La Place frequently reminds his household of this. When La Place’s

wife breaks down into tears the final time, La Place reminds her “that we must not look to men to

protect us but rather to God alone.”30 In a literal sense, La Place is telling his wife this to give her

courage in the face of the massacres. However, because we know La Place’s fate, it is also

evident that he has commended himself into God’s hands. The fact that La Place does not resist

shows his immense courage and his acceptance of God’s will. La Place has already placed

himself in God’s hands, and is effectively dead and separated from the living.31

Goulart’s presentation of resurrection and separation is curious though, because it does

not completely adhere to Protestant doctrine. Protestant doctrine decrees that no one can be

aware of whether the dead achieve salvation. In fact, ministers like Goulart frequently warned

followers to be wary around such signs. This is because Goulart is trying to attract an audience to

29 Goulart, 103-104. 30 Goulart, 102-106. For more information on Protestant funerary sermons, consult, Kolofsky, 329-330; and Luria, 195-197. 31 Goulart, 102.

14

his funeral. This audience is the moderate Catholics mentioned by Kingdon when he discusses

Goulart’s political motives. If Goulart is trying to include Catholics in his funeral, resurrection

takes on an even more central role in the burials. Most Catholics believed that Huguenots were

damned. The massacres were set off, after all, by Catholics trying to defend the true faith and

remove taint from their country.32

Accounts that are written in a span of one to five years before the massacres even reveal

this deep-seated belief. Jean La Fosse, a Parisian Priest, frequently wrote diary entries in the

years leading up to the massacres. Clearly, he is a well-informed citizen, as he notes accurate

historical events such as Coligny’s reinstatement in government, and the actions of foreign

dignitaries. In a November entry written in 1571, though, La Fosse writes a seemingly irrational

account of witches in regards to the king’s reign going sour. La Fosse makes this point right after

taking note of Coligny’s apparent influence in the government. The priest writes “there was

much talk of witches and warlocks,” and that “more than 30,000 were at work.”33 The account

seems out of place next to La Fosse’s far more rational entries. This goes to show that even the

most educated of Catholics had poor opinions of Protestantism. The presence of witches and

warlocks seems to suggest that those who covert to Protestantism are damned.34

In order to counter this, Goulart must show his Catholic readers that the victims of the

massacres are resurrected. He does this by employing the ideals of Protestant funerals,

emphasizing the idea of resurrection. By doing this, Goulart invites moderate Catholics to his

funeral. Catholics are unwittingly drawn in and become apart of the mourning process. They feel

empathy for the fallen Huguenots, and give comfort to the living. When offering this support,

32 For more information on Protestant family structures, read, Louisa L. Foss, and Melanie A. Warnke, “Fundamentalist Protestant Christian Women: Recognizing Cultural and Gender Influences on Domestic Violence,” Counseling and Values 48, no.1 (October 2003): 15-16. To read the list Goulart drew up, read, Goulart, 102.  33 Goulart, 102-108. 34 Goulart, 102-108.

15

Catholics fall into the trap that Goulart has set for them. This trap is no less than Kingdon and

Diefendorf’s propaganda theory. If pulling Catholic mourners into the funeral caused them to

feel first empathy for the Huguenots, inevitably it would lead to outrage. Once this was in

motion, Goulart would have gained more recruits to his cause to question governments and

strengthen the Protestant movement.35

Who should attend a burial service leads into the second component of Goulart’s funeral,

the inclusion of familial and societal roles in the stages before and after death. In Protestant

society, friends and family alike took it upon themselves to stand vigil besides the deathbed.

They could not pray for the dying, but they could look for signs that their loved one had achieved

salvation after they had passed. This was foretold by the way a person dies. The man who dies

easily goes to Heaven. This is not the reality for many of the dead in the Massacres, La Place

included. Huguenot survivors would realize this as well. Goulart, however, appears to be on a

mission to assuage his readers’ fears by assuring them that La Place, and other victims of the

massacres, did die easily. La Place, as we have already seen, is without fear when he confronts

his fate. He does not put up a struggle, and puts all his faith in God. La Place’s faith make his

death seem relatively easy, a sure sign to readers that he went to Heaven. Goulart even

acknowledges that, “His soul, having been received in heaven,” shows that even a Protestant

minister is certain of La Place’s fate.36 La Place, however, is not the only martyr who dies a

“good death.” 37

35 Goulart, 103.36 Goulart, 102-10837 Gouart, 102-108. For more on martyrdom, consult, Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 2-69; and Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross, 107-136. For more information on Huguenot conversion to Catholicism in the wake of the massacres, consult, Kingdon, “Reactions to the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres in Geneva and Rome,” 25-32.

16

In one instance, a woman in labor is killed, though manages to give birth before her

death. Such determination shows that the woman, like La Place, was not afraid to die but worried

for her unborn child instead. Another account tells of a second woman who refuses to go to mass

despite the fact it would spare her from the killings. In all the deathway accounts, the victims die

bravely without begging their killers for mercy. Naturally, this is essential in martyr tradition, but

it also allows Goulart to show his readers that the victims died well and, as such, give mourners

the signs they would look for on deathbeds that meant the deceased had gone to Heaven. The

massacres had already rocked the faith of Huguenots as was. Goulart’s giving reassurance,

therefore, serves two purposes. First, it serves his political goal of ensuring Huguenot survivors

did not sway from the True Faith by giving reassurance that the victims went to Heaven.

Secondly, if fulfills pre-burial obligations by giving readers a chance to look for signs that the

deceased has gone to Heaven. With this assurance, mourners could move onto the burial itself.38

While Protestant doctrine discourages prayers from Catholic tradition that were meant to

help the dead, it was too difficult for most Protestants to completely forego these customs during

burials. Prior to La Place’s death, we see that he leads the household in prayer during Sunday

exhortation. Often, before the procession a prayer is held over the body of the deceased. La

Place’s performance of the Sunday exhortation not only serves to display his deep faith, but is

also the prayer that precedes his funeral as well. In this sense, it is curious that La Place should

lead the prayer, and not one of the living members of the family, who would have done so had

La Place been properly buried. However, Goulart not only had an agenda to fulfill, but facts to

contend with as well. If La Place truly did lead his household in prayer, Goulart could hardly

omit the detail or change it. That being said, the fact that Goulart chooses to include the detail,

38 To see full reading of Commander Petrucci’s account, read, Petrucci, “General uncertainty and speculation on 23rd,” in The French Wars of Religion, Selected Documents, ed. by David Potter (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1997): 139.

17

despite the fact it has no bearing on La Place’s fate, is significant. It shows La Place as an ideal

Christian, but it also sets the stage for the funeral procession that follows, and the duties the

living family members must perform for the dead.39

Out of all the characters in the deathway account, including her children, La Place’s wife

is the only one to weep and show distress over her husband. The other members of La Place’s

family, his son and his daughter, do not appear to spare much thought over their father’s fate that

we know of. As the widow, it is the duty of La Place’s wife to lead the readers in mourning for

her husband. Goulart makes La Place’s wife an ideal leader for mourning not only because she is

the widow, but because his readers can relate better to her. La Place is a heroic character, and our

hearts go out to him because of his fate. But La Place is constructed as a resurrected, perfect soul

that we cannot relate to. La Place’s wife is still human, and her fears are fears that we as readers

can understand. Goulart chose her to lead the mourners, his readers, in the funeral procession of

the victims because of her central role as well. The mourning would continue throughout the

funeral, which La Place’s wife does continue dutifully into the procession.40

There is evidence that funerals are used not only to help the living cope, but to reinforce

societal roles as well. If this is so, then Goulart’s funeral is certainly oriented around this. It

reinforces the ideal structure of the Protestant family. A typical Protestant family was

Patriarchal. Goulart’s list at the beginning of La Place’s account only emphasizes this, as it puts

the roles of men, above the women. After listing the atrocities of the Catholics, he emphasizes

the brutality of the killings as “more than ten thousand persons, among them great lords,

gentlemen, presiding magistrates and judges, artisans, women, girls, and boys,” accounted for the

39 To see the full account of Commander Petrucci’s account, consult, Petrucci, 139; for more information on the doubts of Protestants after the massacres, consult, Kingdon, “Reactions to the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres in Geneva and Rome,” 29-32. 40 To read more on Goulart’s political motives, read Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 1-6 and 70-220. For the full account of La Place’s death. read Goulart, 102-106.

18

victims.41 In a more practical sense, Goulart is simply stating that no one was spared. Though the

fact that he presents the information in a hierarchical format makes his list suspicious. If Goulart

wanted to inspire fury, surely he would have started the list with the most innocent victims at

first. That would typically entail the woman and children. Instead, he starts with the highest and

works his way down. Perhaps this is not so much a list as a funeral procession.42

Goulart’s entire work embodies this ideal. His first account starts with La Place, who has

respect in the Huguenot community. As an esteemed Huguenot, it is only fitting that La Place

has first place in the procession. La Place embodies the “great lords,” the “gentlemen,” and the

“presiding magistrates.”, La Place has earned enough respect to be considered equal to a lord and

a gentleman because of his position. La Place’s natural career is also a magistrate, so it is only

fitting that he should embody that ideal as well. The following deathway accounts all cover the

deaths of several artisans. The first of these is a jeweler called Mathurin Lussault, whose entire

family is killed as soon as he unwittingly opens his doors to his killers. The second is a jeweler

as well, and the third is a merchant. All three of these accounts could very easily represent the

“artisans” that Goulart mentions in his opening paragraph. The final account also tells of the

death of a merchant, but the clear center of this piece is his considerably braver wife. Thus,

Goulart also fills the slot of “women,” on his list as well. The only two he appears to be lacking

are the children.43

Once the procession had reached the cemetery, the burial would start. This burial was

initiated by the final component of Goulart’s funeral. The sermon. Despite the fact Calvinist

41 To see arguments on Goulart’s political motives, read, Kingon, 1-6 and 70-220; and Diefendorf, 168-170. Goulart, 102-103.42 To read more on Goulart’s political motives, read Kingdon, 1-6, and 70-219; and Diefendorf, 169-170. Goulart, 102-103.43 For more arguments on Goulart’s propaganda campaign, consult Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 1-6, and 70-220; and Diefendorf, 168-170. For the accounts of the massacres, read, Goulart, 101-108.

19

doctrine forbids the use of sermons at funerals, families still insisted on having them. This was

especially true in the case of the wealthy, who would often pay ministers to perform sermons at

burials. It is interesting to note that La Place and other Huguenot victims were all relatively well

off. All of the victims were of the middling class at the least. La Place in particular was wealthy,

and powerful as well. If anyone was deserving of a sermon, surely it was the Huguenot

magistrate who had earned the respect of his fellow Protestants.44

In Catholic funerals, sermons relate life of the deceased to a Biblical passage. Goulart’s

accounts do not go into detail of the deceased’s life though. They merely concentrate on the

moment of death, which correlates with the Protestant principal of focusing on the resurrection

rather than the possibility of the deceased lingering. However, even Goulart will subtly hint at

each of his victim’s lives in their actions. If we turn again to the La Place account, we notice that

there are several instances where La Place goes about what seems to be daily routine. In one

example La Place “ordered his servants who remained in the house be called,” for a sermon “as

they were accustomed to doing each Sunday for exhortation he customarily made to his family,

he began to pray.”45 Goulart’s emphasis on La Place’s holding exhortation “each Sunday,” hints

at a routine that La Place performs every day. Performing the Sunday exhortations were clearly

apart of La Place’s life. The dedication the magistrate had in keeping up with the routine hints

that La Place’s life was completely devoted to God. This is further emphasized when La Place

continually chastises his family when they begin to lose faith, and with the complete trust he

places in his savior’s hands at the end of the account. La Place’s life is an exemplary one, which

fulfills another function of a Protestant funerary sermon.46

44 Seeman, 29-33.45 Seeman, 38-44.46 Seeman, 38-44.

20

If a Calvinist minister had to give a sermon, it usually taught a lesson in morality or

proper behavior in accordance to a Biblical passage. The example of La Place’s death embodies

a very important lesson in morality. Goulart goes through great pains to emphasis the bravery

and faith of his victims, and often describes their grisly end with much detail. The gory parts of

the Goulart’s collection are made so, no doubt, to make the deaths of the victims much worse. It

was a good way to spread outrage, but it also emphasized the courage of the deceased as martyrs

too. Despite the horrific end that awaited them, the victims remained steadfast in their faith, and

were resurrected anew. The example Goulart is trying to make is to keep the faith so to earn

eternal life. This was especially pertinent considering that most Huguenots were converting back

to Catholicism. Goulart had effectively resurrected the subjects of his accounts, and because of

this he has shown that despite the fact they may die, other Protestants who keep similar faith may

also be resurrected.47

Goulart’s Huguenot readers in particular needed this type of reassurance. The slaughter

around the Huguenots probably made resurrection seem a doubtful possibility. Goulart’s work

came out well after the Catholics had their say too. Even before the massacres Catholic writings

seemed to work hard to sow doubt in Huguenots. Many of these accounts leading up to the

massacres describe the apparent favor God has for the Catholic majority. One account, written

the day before the massacres on August 23, 1572, records a correspondence between one

Commander Petrucci to Francesco de Medici, a relative of the Queen Mother, regarding the

details surrounding the attempt on Coligny’s life. At the end of the account, Petrucci comments

that the Duke of Savoy, when asked whether he is worried that either the Prince of Orange or

God will react negatively to the attempted assassination, replies, “ ‘God loves Catholics.’ ”48

47 To see more of Barabara B. Diefendorf’s credentials, visit “Barbara Diefendorf,” Boston University—History. 48 To read more on martyrization in the wake of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, read Barbara B. Diefendorf, Beneath the Cross, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991), 107-136; and Robert M. Kingdon, Myths

21

As a minority in France, most Huguenots were probably overwhelmed by opinions such

as these. They may have been tolerable when leaders such as Coligny and La Place were still

alive, but with the deaths of those same leaders many Huguenots probably began to question

whether or not they were on the side God had favored. It was important for Goulart and other

leading Protestants to prevent people from leaving the Reformed Faith. They accomplished this

by comforting the survivors through burials of the dead, and, through those burials, reassurance

in the light of Catholic abuse and the tragedy of the massacres. Despite the fact Goulart’s

certainty about La Place’s resurrection goes against Protestant doctrine, he endorses it because it

combats the belief that God was on the Catholic’s side. This correlates with the lesson Goulart is

trying to illustrate in his sermons. Keep faith in God, and all will be made well with eternal life.49

The sermons also serve Goulart’s underlying political motives that both Kingdon and

Diefendorf have acknowledged. In La Place’s account, the first advisory we are confronted with

is Captain Michael and his guard. Captain Michael is sent from the government, and he displays

a sense of duplicity. As we see later, Charles IX, who apparently sent the guard, has no intention

of sparing La Place’s life. Captain Michael maintains this is his mission. He also states that he is

there to ensure that La Place’s house is not pillaged by the rioters. This is offset by the fact that

moments later, Captain Michael asks to see all the gold and silver in the house. Goulart is

showcasing the hypocrisy and corruption in the French monarchy in this sense.50

Captain Michael claims that he is there to ensure that La Place’s money is safe from

pillagers, yet he intends to pillage it himself. Captain Michael’s second instance of duplicity

about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Masacres 1572-1573, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), 1-6.49 For more information on martyrdom and the Protestant cause in France, consult Diefendorf, 107-108; and Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 1-69. For more information on political propaganda and the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, read, Kingdon, 70-219. 50 To read more on Simon Goulart, consult, Barbara B. Diefendorf, “Memoirs of the State of France under Charles IX,” in The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, A Brief History with Documents, ed. by Barbara B. Diefendorf (Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2009): 101; and Kingdon, Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 2-6.

22

comes from his very real intentions to have La Place killed. However, La Place refuses Captain

Michael’s offer and the captain does not get a chance to carry out his orders. La Place will later

be killed by guards who were supposed to ensure his safe passage to the Lourve, only

intensifying the message in Goulart’s sermon that the French monarchy is corrupt. This is only

emphasized by the fact that Captain Michael and later, Captain Senescay are acting on the King’s

orders. Hence, as Diefendorf and Kingdon have already discovered, Goulart is using sermon to

sow doubts in his readers’ minds that monarchy is the best form of government.51

Goulart also uses this lesson in his sermons against the radical Catholics themselves. In

La Place’s account, the magistrate’s Catholic killers are depicted as corrupt agents of the

monarchy. In other deathway narratives, they are depicted as bestial and savage. The brutal

behavior of the Catholics offers an even greater contrast to the virtuous Huguenots. Goulart has

already reassured his readers who is going to Heaven, and as such, is on the side of God. The

contrast Goulart offers his readers also shows who is going to Hell. This type of propaganda, that

Kingdon and Diefendorf both note in their works, demonizes radical Catholics and further

dissuades Huguenots from relapsing into Catholicism. Goulart not only accomplishes this by

depicting the Catholics in an unflattering light, but also by reminding his readers what they might

become should they turn away from the Reformed Faith.52

Moderate Catholic readers were likely disgusted by what they read. This would possibly

create shame in Catholic readers, and perhaps even convert them to the Protestant faith. Failing

that though, moderate Catholics would likely want to distance themselves from the rioters and all

who endorse them. The most powerful endorser of the massacres would be the Pope. As such,

51 Men, usually from the military, armed with a harquebus or early gun created in 15th century Spain. Definition from, Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. “Harquebus,” accessed November 21, 2013. 52 Excerpt from, Simon Goulart “Memoirs of the State of France under Charles IX,” in The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, A Brief History with Documents, ed. by Barbara B. Diefendorf (Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2009): 101-104.

23

Goulart would have successfully turned his Catholic readers away from Papal authority. Kingdon

and Diefendorf both mark Goulart’s argument as propaganda. While this is undoubtedly true, the

deathway narratives also serve as sermons as well. They are lesson for grieving protestants to

follow so they may not only recover, but learn something from the deaths.53

The dead of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre did not receive the honor of a proper

burial. They were instead subjected to humiliation and desecration at the hands of their killers. It

was impractical for Protestants to return to Paris and bury the dead. Indeed at that point the

bodies were probably destroyed beyond recognition. The survivors that fled the massacres would

not have been able to even prepare the dead for burial. A proper burial means everything to most

cultures. Without burials, there is no closure and no way for the living to move on and grieve

properly. In order to cope with this grief, the Huguenot survivors buried their dead in another

way. They buried them with words. Words were just as lasting as any gravestone. Legends

would last even longer. Those who collected eye-witness accounts, like Goulart, buried the dead

in the only way they could think of. They gave those respected Huguenots like Pierre de La Place

a proper burial to take away the sting of humiliation and to help make sense of the grief that

inevitably followed such a tragedy. So though the thousands of Huguenots who died in the

massacre received no physical burial, they received the next best thing. Their remains will

forever be interred in the cemetery of words and legendary deeds.

53 Exceprt from, Simon Goulart, 104-108.

24

Annotated Bibliography

I. Primary Sources

Goulart, Simon. “Memoirs of the State of France under Charles IX.” In The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, A Brief History with Documents. Edited by Barbara B. Diefendorf. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press. 2009. An excerpt of Simon Goulart’s work, Memoirs of the State of France under Charles IX. A valuable primary source that includes eye-witness accounts from survivors of the massacre. However, the source is only an excerpt and does not include the entire work.

La Fosse. “The Supposed Influence of Coligny at Court.” In The French Wars of Religion, Selected Documents. Edited by David Potter. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1997:132. Provides a good idea of how outsiders viewed Gaspard De Coligny and other Huguenots in court. The second section in particular showcases the superstitious beliefs people had to French Protestants at the time, as there is a mention of witches.

25

Petrucci, “General uncertainty and speculation on 23rd.” In The French Wars of Religion, Selected Documents. Edited by David Potter. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1997: 139.An account from a commander who gives the general opinion of Catholic attitudes towards Protestants. It reveals deep resentment, uncertainty, and even fear. These are all traits that Natalie Zemon Davis has identified in her works. It makes an excellent companion to her article.

II. Secondary Sources

“Barbara Diefendorf.” Boston University—History. Accessed November 22, 2013. http://www.bu.edu/history/faculty/barbara-diefendorf/. Gives a good overview of the historian, Barbara B. Diefendorf’s credentials. Also a good place to find other works written by her.

Davis, Natalie Zeman. “Religious Riot in Sixteenth-Century France,” In The Massacre of St. Bartholomew: Reappraisals And Documents. Edited by Alfred Somon. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague. Davis explores the patterns of religious violence leading up to the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres. Her investigation includes those groups of Huguenots and Catholics that were the biggest target, why such riots occurred, and how they were justified in the minds of the radical mobs.

Diefendorf, Barbara B. Beneath the Cross: Catholics and Huguenots in sixteenth-century Paris. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Diefendorf explores the roots of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in this monograph. She seeks to discover the true catalyst of the massacres by discerning the conflicts and tensions prior to August 1572. Good for explanatory material and a great example of analysis.

Diefendorf, Barbara B. “Prologue to a Massacre: Popular Unrest in Paris, 1557-1572.” American Historical Review 90, no.5 (December 1985): 1067. Accessed October 16, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=0fb35c5f-0208-413c-931e-cd59d0dd58b0%40sessionmgr13&hid=2.Provides more reasons for why the massacres occurred with such violence and breadth. Diefendorf again tries to find the catalyst but focuses mainly on the events that precede the massacres by examining the time between the three religious wars of France.

Encyclopedia Britannica. s.v. “Harquebus.” http://www.britannica .com/EBchecked / topic/255834/harquebusClearly defines what a harquebus is, a term used in Simon Goulart’s deathway narrative of Pierre de La Place.

26

Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World 5th ed. s.v. “St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.” (2006): 299-300. Accessed October 5, 2013. http://go.galegroup.com/ ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=RELEVANCE&inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=viva_jmu&tabID=T003&searchId=R1&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CCX3404901000&&docId=GALE|CX3404901000&docType=GALE.An excellent overview of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres. The source is a little vague in some places, but provides good information to start off with for research. It also includes a good bibliography at the end to reference other works.

Foss, Louisa L., and Warnke, Mealnie A. “Fundamentalist Protestant Christian Women: Recognizing Cultural and Gender Influences on Domestic Violence.” Counseling and Values 48, no.1 (October 2003): 15-16. Accessed November 17, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=ddf306c9-c0d1-4b54-9988-53421d4f06df%40sessionmgr4004&hid=116.An adequet source for understanding Protestant family structures. However, the source is very biased against Protestant family structures and tends to skew facts. It also deal primarly with the modern day Protestant family structure.

Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia. s.v. “Indulgence.” Accessed November 20, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?sid=c73569f2-0631-44c0-8e84-7cdd7a280c8b%40sessionmgr4001&vid=4&hid=102&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLGNvb2tpZSx1cmwsY3BpZCx1aWQmY3VzdGlkPXM4ODYzMTM3JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=funk&AN=IN019600.Clearly defines an “indulgence,” a term referenced several times in secondary sources and primary sources alike.

Giblin, Paul and Hug, Andrea. “The Psychology of Funeral Rituals.” Liturgy 21 no.1 (2006): 11-9. Accessed November 2, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?sid=ddf306c9-c0d1-4b54-9988-53421d4f06df%40sessionmgr4004&vid=14&hid=4213.Provides an excellent overview to the psychological importance of funerals. Ties in religious beliefs, and the way individuals and societies use other people for support in their grief.

Gonzales, Joseph M. “Sleeping Bodies, Jubilant Souls: The Fate of the Dead in Sweden 1400-1700.” Canadian Journal of History 40, no.2 (August 2005): 207. Accessed November 17, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=11&sid=ddf306c9-c0d1-4b54-9988-53421d4f06df%40sessionmgr4004&hid=116.A good source for better understanding Catholic burial traditions. Though the source covers Switzerland, the information is still sound and can be applied to Catholic burial rites in France.

Holt, Mack P. The French Wars of Religion, 1562-1629. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 1995. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb01888.

27

Provides excellent background on the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres and the French Wars of Religion. Also provides a good bibliography for further reading.

Kastenbaum, Robert. “Why Funerals?” Generations 28 no.2. Summer 2004. Accessed November 2, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ddf306c9-c0d1-4b54-9988-53421d4f06df%40sessionmgr4004&vid=5&hid=116.A good source for researching the psychological need for funerals. This source not only discusses the individual’s need for closure, but the need shared by society as a whole. However, it makes modern comparisons. This comparison does not detract from the piece though, it merely uses modern examples to clarify points.

Kingdon, Robert M. Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres 1572-157. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. Kingdon explores and debunks the myths surrounding the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres. He argues the tales spread so far and wide to promote Protestant propaganda as part of a larger agenda in Europe to displace Catholic powers.

Kingdon, Robert M. “Reactions To the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres in Geneva And Rome.” In The Massacres of St. Bartholomew: Reappraisals And Documents. Edited by Alfred Somon. Netherlands: Martinus Nijoff, The Hague.Kingdon discusses the reactions of Geneva and Rome, both Protestant and Catholic powers respectively. His essay reveals doubts and anger in the Protestant camp while Catholic Rome seems to display not only satisfaction, but triumph over the massacres. Kingdon debunks the events surrounding both reactions and why they may have led to certain events in further conflicts.

“Robert M. Kingdon.” University of Wisconsin—Madison, Department of History. 2012. Accessed November 22, 2013. http://history.wisc.edu/home/kingdon.htm.Gives an overview of the historian, Robert M. Kingdon’s credentials. Includes important works by him in addition to the history of his career and how he became a famous historian on the Reformation.

Kolofsky, Craig. “Honor and Violence in German Lutheran funerals in the confessional age.” Social History 20. 1995. Accessed November 2, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=2b2d2ecc-5562-4d2b-92dc-4568f018f51a%40sessionmgr15&hid=105Provides a good example of what a Protestant burial looks like. Although it focuses more on Lutheran traditions than any other Protestant sect. However, Calvinist funerals are mentioned and described adequately.

Kwan, Simon S M. “Hope for the Dead: Protestant Death Rituals and the Psychology of the Continuing Bond.” International Journal of the Humanities 8 no. 9. 2010. Accessed November 2, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2b2d2ecc-5562-4d2b-92dc-4568f018f51a%40sessionmgr15&vid=6&hid=2Describes typical Protestant attitudes towards death and funerals. Though useful it concentrates on present attitudes and not those that might have been held at the time of the Reformation.

28

Luria, Keith P. “Separated by Death? Burials, Cemeteries, and Confessional Boundaries in Seventeenth-Century France.” French Historical Studies 24 no. 2. Spring 2001. Accessed November 2, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=2b2d2ecc-5562-4d2b-92dc-4568f018f51a%40sessionmgr15&hid=16.Luria provides a good distinction between Protestant and Catholic burial traditions. Although it is centered on events that take place about a century after the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres.

Manetsch, Scott M. “The Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.” Christian History 20, no. 3. (August 2011): 8. Accessed October 16, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?vid=2&sid=2fe8c6cc-e9d7-4218-a508-f54995d88670%40sessionmgr198&hid=115&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLGNvb2tpZSx1cmwsY3BpZCx1aWQmY3VzdGlkPXM4ODYzMTM3JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=f5h&AN=5017898.A little vague, but the author provides good background information on the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres. He provides paintings, maps, and even a medallion commemorating the massacres. Manetsch explains all his illustrations well. They also make for good primary sources.

O’Rourke, T., Spitzberg, Brian H., Hannawa Annegret F. “The Good Funeral:Toward an Understanding of Funeral Participation and Satisfaction.” Death Studies 35 no.8 September 2011. Accessed November 2, 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ddf306c9-c0d1-4b54-9988- 53421d4f06df%40sessionmgr4004&vid=3&hid=4113.A good source for understanding the psychological need for funerals. Most of its information is based on studies from modern day, but the psychological component can be applied to all peoples and times.

Seeman, Erik R. Death in the New World: Cross Cultural Encounters, 1492-1800. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010. Provides a good analysis of the common attitudes different cultures have about death. Has a solid argument, and is good with covering in breadth and depth. However, the main concentration is in the Americas.

29

30

31