^{Note 1 in page 349} See his edition of The Massacre at Paris (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.), p. 176.

^{Note 2 in page 349} “Christopher Marlowe and the Newsbooks,” Journalism Quarterly, xiv (March, 1937), 18–22. In addition, since the present paper was written, F. S. Boas in his Christopher Marlowe (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1940) has expressed the same conviction and has cited some of the relevant passages from The Three Partes of Commentaries, without, however, giving a full discussion.

^{Note 3 in page 349} Upon inspection of a copy of the Commentaries it becomes evident that Book x is not by Jean de Serres, the author of Books i–ix and xi–xii. The first ten books were printed in 1574 with the title The Three Partes of Commentaries Containing the whole and perfect discourse of the Ciuill warres of Fraunce ... with an Addition of the cruell Murther of the Admiral Chastilion, and diuers other Nobles... . Trans. Thomas Timme, London, 1574. Book x is this addition. It has a separate heading and separate pagination, but no indication of author, translator, publisher, or date. Then follows, in the same binding, The Fourth parte of Comentarles of the Ciuill warres in Fraunce ... Trans. Thomas Tymme, London, 1576. It has a separate title page, new pagination, etc. Notably, it contains a Translator's Preface to the Reader which states “... bycause we haue to our third part already a tenth Booke annexed contayning the summe of those things which are written in the first Booke of this fourth volume, I haue thought good not to translate the same in order as it lieth, but only to gleane out those principall matters which are different from the other:” In other words, Tymme will not translate in full Book x of Serres because its subject matter is covered by the other account already incorporated as Book x of The Three Partes. A comparison of Book x of The Three Paries with A true and plaine report (1573) reveals that they are identical in text save for immaterial divergences in spelling and paragraphing. Pretty certainly, then, the English translation of Hotman (1573) was set up anew and appended as an Addition to The Three Partes when it was printed at London in 1574.

^{Note 4 in page 350} De Furoribus Gallicis, horrenda & indigna Amirallii Castillionei, Nobilium atq; illustrium caede... .: Vera & simplex Narratio. Ernesto Varamundo Frisio Auctore. Bakeless, op. cit., although not mentioning A True and plaine report, was first to notice that the De Furoribus Gallicis, and Book x of The Three Partes of Commentaries contained the same material. His statements about dates and editions, however, need clarification. There seem to have been two impressions of the De Furoribus Gallicis, one purporting to be issued “Edinburgi ... 1573,” the other “Londini, Ex officina Henrici Bynneman. 1573.” Since they are in every other respect identical, both were probably printed by Bynneman at London. The English translation of 1573 was ostensibly issued at “Striveling, Scotland”; London is more credible.

^{Note 5 in page 350} “Composé par Eusebe Philadelphe Cosmopolite, en forme de Dialogues A Edimbourg, 1574,” declares the title page.

^{Note 6 in page 351} A Menaylous discourse upon the lyfe, ... of Katherine de Medicis, Queene mother, Heydelberge [London?], 1575.

^{Note 7 in page 351} Tr. A. Golding (London, 1576). This work is sometimes ascribed to Hotman, but to avoid confusion I shall accept Serres' authorship for the purposes of this study.

^{Note 8 in page 351} London, 1589.

^{Note 9 in page 351} Anonymous, printed by T. Creede (London, 1597).

^{Note 10 in page 351} Anonymous, printed by T. Creede (London, 1598).

^{Note 11 in page 351} London, L. N., for R. Whitaker.

^{Note 12 in page 351} Approximately half of the number of passages from Hotman which I quote have been printed complete in Bennett's edition of The Massacre, the other half either not at all or incompletely. I shall not trouble the reader with acknowledgments of priority in individual instances but refer him to Bennett's notes.

^{Note 13 in page 352} Other contemporary accounts are not so close as Hotman. Thus Estienne's Lyfe ... of Katherine de Medicis, p. 99, says that Catherine procured the murder: “... shee had recourse unto her hyred and usuall poysoner Maister Rene, who by selling his perfumes and perfumed doblets unto the said queene, found meanes so to infect her, that sone after she dyed, ...” The effect of the poison on the brain is not alluded to. Le Reveille-Matin des Francois, Dialogue i, 35: “La royne de Nauarre ... mourut ... d'un boucon qui luy fut donné à un festin, où le duc d'Aniou estoit. ...” Dowriche's The French Historie, although a versification of Hotman's account, does not mention that the poisoning was committed by an apothecary (p. 21^r). Some contemporary narratives, more correct historically, do not attribute the death to poison at all.

^{Note 14 in page 353} A description of the royal wedding which is near to Marlowe's is that from J. Serres‘ The Lyfe of... I as per Colignie Shatilion, sig. F8, quoted by Bennett (p. 182); “It was this day past fower of the clocke in the afternoone, ere the mariage masse was celebrated. While that was a singing, the King of Nauarre walked up and downe with certein noblemen of our Religion which followed him, in a certein yard with owt the Churche.” Hotman, however, specifies the same companions for Navarre that Marlowe does, and, moreover, details the bride's entrance into the Cathedral, as does Marlowe. I may anticipate somewhat by saying here that although Marlowe may have used Serres’ Colignie as a minor supplementary source for a few items not present in Hotman, the indebtedness cannot be great. The Colignie, restricting itself to the affairs in which the Admiral took part, adds little about them (pertinent to Marlowe) that is not in Hotman, omits much that is there, and does not touch upon the larger portion of the massacre.

^{Note 15 in page 354} Serres' Colignie, F8^v has it that as the Admiral “passed by the house of Villemure a canon, scholemaister too the yoong Duke of Gwyse, he was striken with a hargabus shot owt of a Lattiswindowe, and wounded in three places. For the forefinger of his ryght hand was broken in peeces, and hys left arme shot throwgh with two pellets of brasse:”. G3: “In the meane season the King of Nauarre and the Prince of Condey complayned to the King of the heynowsenesse of the fact.” There seems to be little to choose between Hotman and the Colignie here. It is unnecessary, however, to call in the Colignie, seeing that Hotman supplies everything needed. Le Reveille-Matin, i, 48, is very much like both of them.

As regards Guise's hiring of the assassin (Marlowe, scene ii) Hotman says nothing expressly, but cumulates several pieces of evidence which point directly to his guilt (xlii–xliii). That also is the implication of the Colignie passages just cited. A Legendarie ... of Charles Cardinal of Lorraine by L. La Planche, Geneva (?), 1577, Preface, A2^v, and An Advertisement from a French Gentleman, London, 1585, p. 7, lay on the house of Guise the general onus for the St. Bartholomew shambles, without specifying the attempt to shoot the Admiral. The Lyfe of Katherine de Medicis, p. 115, places the blame for the shooting on Catherine.

^{Note 16 in page 355} In Colignie, G3^r, the Admiral does not send a messenger to ask the king's visit but expresses that desire to two gentlemen who come to see him. Then “Abowt twoo of the clocke in the afternoone, the King being certified of the Admiralls desyre, went untoo him, accompanyed with the Queene Moother, the Kings twoo brothers ...” Before this visit, says the Colignie, G3^r, the king had told Navarre and Condé, “I sweare by God ... that I will reuenge this fact so seuerely, as it may bee an example to all that come after.” In both respects, Hotman is the more pertinent. The Colignie records also that while the King was at his bedside the Admiral expressed his opinion that the Guises were guilty.

^{Note 17 in page 355} The Colignie version (G7^r) is that after the King has returned to the Louvre, a messenger is sent from the Admiral to request a guard and that the King dispatched to him“Mounsyre Cossins ... accompanied with 50 hargabutters ...” Le Reveille-Matin, i, 52, without mentioning Cossin, says merely that about 100 soldiers were placed in front of the Admiral's lodging by command of Charles. Marlowe would scarcely have taken the trouble to change Colignie's 50 or Le Reveille-Matin's, 100 to “twenty” if he had been using those books as his source at this point.

^{Note 18 in page 356} The view of Le Reveille-Matin, i, 106, is that there was no assembled council and that Anjou and Catherine together persuaded Charles to consent to the massacre: “Le samedi au soir, deuant le Dimanche du massacre, ils vindrēt tous deux trouuer le Roy: Ils luy remonstrent, ils le prient qu'il haste l'execution de leur entreprise: ils scauoyent bien que si ceste occasion se perdoit, qu'ils ne la recouureroyent iamais telle ...” The Lyfe of Katherine de Medicis, p. 133, avers that the Queen Mother and her foreign favorites, Gonzague and Rhets, concocted the entire scheme. An Historicall Collection (1598), p. 251, adopts substantially this latter report.

^{Note 19 in page 357} Guise's being put in charge of executing the plans for the massacre is recorded by several histories written soon after Marlowe's death. See Serres' A General Inventorie of the Historie of France (Tr. E. Grimeston and published in London, 1607, but written shortly after 1598), p. 646; The Historie of the Civill Warres of France by H. C. Davila, tr. from Italian by W. Aylesbury, London, 1647, p. 371.

^{Note 20 in page 357} The Colignie has nothing about these arrangements. Le Reveille-Matin, i, 56, also is silent but thus narrates the beginning of the slaughter: At two o'clock on Sunday morning, August 24, “on donna le signe du temple de sainct Germain l'Auxerrois, à son de cloche:” Guise comes to the Admiral's lodging “à cheual, accompagné d'une grande troupe de ses parrizās:”. A General Inventorie, p. 647, gives a very similar description. Davila, p. 373, says that the tolling of the bell of the palace clock was the signal for the general holocaust. Marlowe's “peal of ordinance shot off from the tower” is not mentioned by any of the accounts, early or late, and is palpably a stage device; loud noises off-stage are very stirring to some types of spectators.

^{Note 21 in page 358} Marlowe is not following any known version in making Gonzago the actual slayer of the Admiral. The Colignie, sig. ^b2, declares that he was killed by Beheme, Cossins, Attignie. Hotman, lv (Comment, x, 14^r) says Benvese, Cossin, Attin and Hanfort. Le Reveille-Matin, i, 56: “Besme, ... Caussens, Sarlaboux & plusieurs autres.”

^{Note 22 in page 358} The throwing of the body from the window into the courtyard where it is viewed by Guise is a well authenticated historical fact, spoken of by many contemporary accounts but nowhere with language and incident so strikingly similar to Marlowe as in Hotman. Le Reveille-Matin, i, 57, goes no farther than to say that “Le corps mort de l'Amiral fut ietté par Sarlaboux par les fenestres de sa chambre, en la cour de son logis, par le commandement du duc de Guyse, & du duc d'Aumale (qui y estoit aussi accouru) & le voulurent voir mort deuant que partir de là.” Anne Dowriche's French Historie (1589), pp. 26–27, being based on Hotman, contains the same events but in words more unlike Marlowe's. See also An Excellent Discourse upon the now present estate of France, Tr. E. A., London, 1592, sig. 5^V.

For Guise's stamping on the corpse, however, I have been unable to find warrant in any work published before Marlowe's death except the Colignie sig. h2^v (quoted by Bennett, p. 199): “The Admiralls bodie being throwne downe out of a windowe, was trampled under foote by the yong Duke of Gwyse, ... ”. The Colignie, therefore, may well be Marlowe's source for this particular. But it does not speak of the doubt of the identity of the body or other particulars common to Marlowe and Hotman. Its account is short and its expression distant from Marlowe's save in the mention of Montfaucon, to be dealt with in the next footnote.

Books published after Marlowe's death which relate both Guise's wiping off the blood and his treading on the body are A Historicall Collection of... Tragicall Massacres of France ... (1598), p. 255, and A General Inventorie (London, 1607) p. 647.

^{Note 23 in page 359} The Lyfe of Katherine de Medicis (1575), p. 102, only approximates Hotman in the matter of the Admiral's head: “The Admiral's body, after that the head being cut off was presented to the queene, did they trayne to Mountfacon gallowes ...” The Colignie, h 2, omits this point but includes Montfaucon, stating that the body was “tumbled in the myre in the open streete ... and a three dayes after caried out of the Citie by the furious multitude, and hanged up by the feete uppon the gallowes of Mountfalcon.” It will be noticed that Hotman does not name the gallows. Montfaucon is quite frequently referred to in other contemporary histories, e.g. Le Reveille-Matin, i, 71. A Historicall Collection (1598), p. 256, repeats Hotman's text almost verbatim but adds the name of Montfaucon. It follows that although Marlowe's borrowing of the name Mountfaucon from the Colignie seems likely, no definite decision can be reached on the point.

^{Note 24 in page 360} The murder of the schoolmasters of Navarre and Condé is not told of in any other narrative current in England before Marlowe's death, as far as I can ascertain. Typically, Le Reveille-Matin, i, 57, merely states that ten or twelve companions of Navarre were taken out of his chambers, disarmed, and slaughtered in the king's presence. According to Hotman and most other historians Navarre and Condé themselves were haled before Charles, and forced under threat of death to abjure Protestantism.

^{Note 25 in page 360} This exclamation “Tuez, tuez!” is not in Hotman, and since it is in other writers Marlowe probably picked it up somewhere else. See Le Reveille-Matin, i, 61, stating that “Ies ducs d'Aumale, de Guyse, & de Neuers, ... alloyent par les rues disans, Tuez tout, le Roy le cōmande” and describing (p. 62) “deux cens soldats armez de la garde du Roy, crians, Tue, tue:” A. Dowriche's French Historie (1589), 30^r, has the verses:

^{Note 26 in page 360} I have not found any allusion to Leranne in other works of the period. Marlowe's alteration of escape to death is easily explained as a stage concession to the spirit of St. Bartholomew. It is not so easy, however, to say why Marlowe makes Leranne a preacher unless there is confusion with the episode of Seroune, immediately following, whom Hotman calls a pastor and Marlowe does not, or unless he designs to increase the sympathy and horror of the audience.

^{Note 27 in page 361} Le Reveille-Matin, i, 60, is equally summary in its treatment of the death of Ramus: “Le president de la Place ... fut à coups de hallebarde mené iusques à la Seine, tué & ietté dans l'eau: autant en fut fait à Pierre Ramus, lecteur publique du Roy.” It seems fairly certain that Marlowe had some additional source for the Ramus matter, perhaps the biographies by Banosius and Freigius cited by Bullen, or possibly Tocsain contre les Massacreurs (1579) cited by Bakeless, Christopher Marlowe (N.Y.: Wm. Morrow & Co.), p. 254, and “Christopher Marlowe and the Newsbooks,” previously cited.

^{Note 28 in page 362} See also The Lyfe of Katherine de Medicis, p. 102, which recounts how the Admiral's body is dragged “to Mountfacon gallowes, whether soone after, in an euening, her self went to behold him, taking with her her sonnes, her daughter, & her sonne in lawe ...” Le Reveille-Matin, i, 64, shows the Queen Mother and her sons going out in the evening “pour voir les morts l'un apres l'autre” but does not designate the Admiral as one of those thus favored. The Colignie does not have this episode.

In passing it should be suggested that Bennett (p. 210) is wrong in believing that the locality of the scene is not Montfaucon, the public place of execution of Paris. All report^S agree that the body was hung from the city gallows and it is perfectly possible to constru^e “this tree” in Marlowe's scene as meaning the gallows tree: everyday Elizabethan usage. We then need not envisage the royal cortege strolling in the woods in order to see a corpse of whose whereabouts they have never been informed.

^{Note 29 in page 363} The murder of Masson de Rivers is not so much as alluded to in any other treatment, early or late, which has come to my attention, and the Hotman text here is not cited by Bennett or Bullen. This scene, with its thoroughgoing similarity between Hotman and Marlowe in event and speech, constitutes the strongest possible proof that Marlowe was working with a copy of Hotman directly in front of him. One may speculate as to why the name Masson de Rivers emerges in the drama as Seroune. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that the change is due to an auditory error on the part of the reporter of the garbled text.

^{Note 30 in page 363} A relatively insignificant exception is the shooting of the hundred Protestants swimming in the Seine (Scene vi, 56–62), very quickly dispatched by Marlowe. This seems to have no exact original in Hotman or elsewhere. Hotman does allude incidentally in several places, however, to victims thrown into the Seine, some dead, some living, and no great feat of imagination would be required to construct Marlowe's brief episode from such hints.

Mention should also be made of Marlowe's Scene ix, eight lines long, in which Guise butchers Protestants gathered to pray in the woods, some time after the main slaughter at Paris is over. This scene likewise has no immediate parallel in Hotman or elsewhere. Possible suggestion for it may have come from Hotman's passing reference to Huguenots who “lurked some in the woodes” (lxxxv; Comment, x, 22 ^r&v), or from his report of the massacre of two hundred Protestants attending a sermon at the town of Vassey in 1561, perpetrated by Francis, second duke of Guise, father of our Guise. (Hotman, vii: Comment, x, 1^v.

^{Note 31 in page 366} It is worth remarking that every name in Marlowe's dramatis personae for the first six scenes is mentioned by Hotman except Dumaine, Taleus, and Seroune. Dumaine seems to be imported into these early scenes primarily in order to link them more closely to later events of the drama, in which he plays a part of some prominence. Taleus appears to come from Marlowe's other source or sources for the Ramus scene. The case of Seroune has already been discussed.

^{Note 32 in page 367} See especially A. Colynet's True History of the Civil Warres in France (London, 1591); M. Hurault's A discourse upon the present estate of France (London, 1588); and M. Hurault's Antisixtus (London, 1590).

^{Note 33 in page 367} Nearest to that view, but still not very near, are the statements in Colynet's True History (1591), p. 409, that Anjou “debased himselfe so farre as to become the chiefest Captayne of an accursed sedition, and procurer of such a murther as hated both of God and man ...” and in the Reveille-Matin, i, 70, that he sent the soldiers of his guard into the country around Paris to kill Huguenots.

^{Note 34 in page 368} It is not unlikely that something has been lost from the text of the drama at this point.