Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/127

 LSAOITE

100

UBAauc

perjurer, assassin, inurdereri a sacrilegious person, patron of heresv. simoniac, magician, impious and damnable", could be deposed by the Church; that, as " a perfidious waster of the public treasure, a tyrant and enemy of his country ", he could be deposed by the people. Boucher declared that a tyrant was a fero- cious beast which men were justified in killing. It was under the influence of these theories that upon the assassination of Henry III by Jacques Client (I August, 1589), the mother of. the Guises harangued the throng from the altar of the chm-ch of the Corde- liers, and glorified the deed of Clement. These exag- gerated ideas served only to justify tyranny, and did not long influence the minds of men. Moreover, the " Declaration" of Henry IV against seditious preachers (September, 1595) ana the steps taken at Kome by Csurdinal d'Ossat, in 1601, put a stop to the political preachings which the League had brought into fash- ion. The memory of the excesses committed imder the League was afterwards exploited by the legists of the French Crown to combat Koman doctrines and to defend royal absolutism and Gallicanism. But, con- sidering the bases of the League doctrines, it is impos- sible not to accord them the highest importance in the history of political ideas. Power, they said, was de- rived from God through the people, and they opposed the false, absolutist, and Gallican doctrine of the Di- vine right and irresponsibility of kings, such as Loiiis XIV professed and practised; and they also bore wit- ness to the perfect compatibility of the most rigorous Roman ideas with democratic and popular aspirations. It has been possible to trace Certain analogies be- tween the doctrines of the League and Protestant brochures like Hotman^s "Franco-Gallia" and the "VindicisB contra tyrannos" of Junius Brutus (Du-

Slessis Momay), published immediately after the [assacre of St. Bartholomew. Indeed, both Hugue- nots and Leaguers were then seeking to limit the royal power; but in the Huguenot projects of reform the tendency was to favour the aristocracy, the opti- mates; they would not allow the mob— the mediastimis quilibet of whom the " Vindiciaj" speak so contempts uously — any right of resistance against the king; the Leaguers, on the contrary, appealed to the democracy. The Huguenots permitted no uprising of the mere private individual save with "God's special calling"; the Leapiers held that every man was called by God to the oefence of the Church, and that all men were equal when there was question of repelling the heretic or the infidel. Hence, in his work, "Des progrds de la revolution et de la guerre contre TEglise" Lamen- nais felt free to write (1829): "How deeply Catholi- cism has impressed souls with the sentiment of liberty, was never more evident than in the days of the League."

See the bibliography of Guise; also Labitte, De la dSmocratie chez lea prfdicateura de la Ligve (Paris, 1841); Weill, Lee tkimieM eur le pouvoir royal en France pendant le» guerrte de religion (Paris, 1891); Treuhann, Die Monarchomachen: eine Darslellung der revolution^ren SUuUslehren dee XVI, Janrhun- derU, 1673-1699 (Leipzig, 1885).

Georges Goyau.

League, German (Cathouc). — Onlv three y^ears before the League was established, DuKe Maximilian of Bavaria (d. 1651), who was afterwards its leading- spirit, declared against the formation of a confederacy of the Catholic states of the empire in Germany, pro- posed^ by the spiritual electors. Soon after, how- ever, in 1(507, he emphasized the need of such a con- federacy, "in order that each may know how far he may rely on the others". There is indeed nothing more natural than the drawing together in times of discord of those who think alike. Besides, the Protest- ant *' Union ** was inaugurated in May, 1608.

Early in 1608 Duke Maximilian started negotiations with the spiritual electors and some of the Catholic •tAtes of the empire, with a view to the formation of a

union of the Catholic states. On 5 May, 1608, there was a eonference on this question in the Imperial Diet at Ratisbon, which amounted, however, only to an exchange of ideas. Two months later (5 July), we find the spiritual electors assembled at Andemach at the invitation of the Archbishop of Maine. This assembly was really held to consiaer the questicm of the imperial succession, but the proposed League was also discussed, and a tendency was manifested in favour of the confederacy suggested by Maximilian. Opinions were even expressea as to the size of the confederate military forces to be raised. Maximilian, who took the most active part at the Andemach conference, afterwards sought among the neighbour- ing princes members for the proposed Leajgue. Sahi- bui^ showed disapproval; Wilrzhurs's bishop was not much more encouraging, but uie Bishops of Augsburg, Passau, and Ratisbon concurred. Until the end of January^ 1609, however, the negotiations flagged. About this time Maximilian won over the Catholic states of Swabia to his project, and on 5 July the representatives of Augsburg, Constance, Passau, Ratisbon, and Wiirzburg assembled at Mun- ich. Salzburg was not invited this time, and Eich- stadt still hesitated. Here on 10 July, 1609, the participating states concluded an alliance " for the de- fence of the Catholic religion and peace within the Empire*'. The confederates might not make war on each other; their disputes must be decided either by arbitration within the confederacy, or by the laws of the Empire; should one member be attacked, the League must resort to arms, or, if prevented .from doing this, must take legal steps. Duke Maximilian was to be the president of the confederacy, and the Bishops of Augsburg, Passau, and W(irzburg his councillors. The League was to continue for nine years.

The foundation of the confederacy was at last laid, but a substantial structure was certainly not erected at Munich. TTiis was not the fault of Maximilian, but of the states, which, always cautious and dilatory, could not be spurred to take decisive action. On 18 June, 169, even before the Munich Diet, the Electors of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier had exchanged opinions through their envoys as to the personnel of the League and the size of the confederate army, for which they proposed 20,000 men. They had also considered the making of Maximilian president of the alliance, and on 30 August they announced their adhesion to the Munich agreement, provided that Maximilian ac- cepted the Elector of Mainz as co-president. As the arch-chancellor of the Empire, the latter enjoyed great

Srestige, and was in a position to exercise great in- uence; consequently, nis support could scarcely be termed anything less than essential to the League. Indeed, in conformity with his wishes, the emperor was informed of the foundation and aims ot the confederacy. As to its precise object, the members themselves were not quite clear. Maximilian, there- fore, urged the convocation of a general meeting of the confederates to remove all misunderstandings. The first was held on 10 Feb., 1610, at Wdrzbuiig. Except Austria and Salzburc, all the important Catholic states and a great num oer of the smaller ones sent representatives. The organization of the coali- tion, the raising of a confederate army, the apportion- ment of the contributions to the alliance, and the enlistment of foreign mercenaries, were the Questions under discussion. The confederacy receivea the of- ficial name, De/enstv- oder Schirmvereinigung. Only after this can one really speak of a Catholic League. The foreign help, on which they principally counted, seemed a&eady assured. The pope and the King of Spain, who had been informed by Maximilian of his plan through the medium of Zuniga, the Spanish ambasaador at Prague, were both favourably disposed to^pi^utils the undertaking.