The Massacre at Paris

Transcription

The Massacre at Paris:
With the Death of the Duke of Guise
An Overview of Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
This overview was written by Mark Abbott of The Marlowe Society (UK).
This document was first published on the Marlowe Society website (http://www.marlowe-society.org/) in September 2011.
© The Marlowe Society 2011-2014.
The Marlowe Society is a company limited by guarantee (3644816) and a registered charity (1075418).
Document History:
Version
Date
Author
Summary of Changes
1.0
15-Sep-2011
Mark Abbott
Initial published version
1.1
13-Nov-2011
Mark Abbott
Minor corrections and typos fixed
1.2
03-Mar-2014
Mark Abbott
Section 3.1.4: Added note on Nicholl’s probable identification of Marlin
carrying letters for Sir Henry Unton, and more details from letter.
Section 6.2.4: Added Read Not Dead to list of productions
1.3
01-Oct-2014
Mark Abbott
Sections 2.5.4, 6.2.4: Added 2014 details of productions by Fourth
Monkey and Dolphin’s Back.
Retrospectively added document history
© The Marlowe Society 2011-2014
http://www.marlowe-society.org/
(v1.3) Page 2 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
The Marlowe Society
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6
1.1
The Massacre at Paris................................................................................................... 6
1.2
Document Conventions ................................................................................................ 7
1.2.1
Names and Dates ................................................................................................. 7
1.2.2
Play Text References ........................................................................................... 7
1.2.3
Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 7
1.3
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 7
The Play History...................................................................................................................... 9
2.1
Dating: c.1592 .............................................................................................................. 9
2.2
Textual History .......................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1
Octavo Edition ................................................................................................... 10
2.2.2
A Reported and Corrupt Text ............................................................................. 11
2.2.3
Dating the Octavo .............................................................................................. 12
2.2.4
Subsequent Editions ........................................................................................... 13
2.3
The Collier Leaf ......................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1
The Leaf ............................................................................................................ 13
2.3.2
Provenance ........................................................................................................ 14
2.3.3
Authenticity ....................................................................................................... 15
2.3.3.1
Tannenbaum Declares the Leaf a Forgery ...................................................... 15
2.3.3.2
Adams Disproves Tannenbaum’s Evidence .................................................... 15
2.3.3.3
Nosworthy Detects Marlowe’s Literary Footprint .......................................... 17
2.3.3.4
Collier’s Interest in Tamburlaine’s Authorship ............................................... 18
2.3.4
Marlowe’s Hand ................................................................................................ 19
2.4
Authorship ................................................................................................................. 21
2.4.1
Marlowe as Author ............................................................................................ 21
2.4.2
The Dutch Church Libel..................................................................................... 22
2.5
Stage History ............................................................................................................. 22
2.5.1
Lord Strange’s Men at The Rose (January 1593) ................................................ 22
2.5.2
The Admiral’s Men at The Rose (1594) ............................................................. 23
2.5.3
Rose Revivals? (1598 and 1601) ........................................................................ 23
2.5.4
Modern Productions ........................................................................................... 25
Interpreting the Play .............................................................................................................. 26
3.1
Sources ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.1.1
Historical Material ............................................................................................. 26
3.1.2
Source for the Massacre Scenes ......................................................................... 27
3.1.3
Sources for Subsequent Scenes .......................................................................... 29
3.1.4
Marlowe’s Own Experience ............................................................................... 33
3.2
Themes in the Play ..................................................................................................... 34
3.2.1
Violence ............................................................................................................ 34
3.2.2
Machiavellian Characters ................................................................................... 35
3.2.3
Marlowe’s Irony ................................................................................................ 37
3.3
Critical History .......................................................................................................... 38
The True History ................................................................................................................... 41
4.1
The French Wars of Religion...................................................................................... 41
(v1.3) Page 3 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
5.
The Marlowe Society
4.2
French Calvinism and the Huguenots ......................................................................... 41
4.3
The Start of the Religious War ................................................................................... 42
4.4
The Three Factions ..................................................................................................... 43
4.5
The Key Events .......................................................................................................... 44
4.5.1
The First War: 02 April 1562 - 12 March 1563................................................... 45
4.5.2
The Second War: 24 September 1567 - 23 March 1568 ...................................... 45
4.5.3
The Third War: August 1568 - August 1570....................................................... 45
4.5.4
Coligny’s Return to Court: September 1571 - August 1572 ................................ 46
4.5.5
Death of Queen of Navarre: 09 June 1572 [TMAP Sc II, III] .............................. 46
4.5.6
Navarre-Valois Wedding: 18 August 1572 [TMAP Sc I] .................................... 47
4.5.7
Shooting of Admiral Coligny: 22 August 1572 [TMAP Sc III, IV] ..................... 47
4.5.8
St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre: 24 Aug 1572 [TMAP Sc V-IX, XI, XII]........ 48
4.5.9
The Fourth War: October 1572 - July 1573 ........................................................ 49
4.5.10
The Death of Charles IX: 30 May 1574 [TMAP Sc XIII] ................................... 49
4.5.11
The Fifth War: September 1575 - May 1576 ...................................................... 49
4.5.12
The Sixth War: March-September 1577 ............................................................. 50
4.5.13
The Seventh War: November 1579 - November 1580 ......................................... 50
4.5.14
The Rise of Henry’s Mignons: 1576 Onwards .................................................... 50
4.5.15
The Duke of Anjou’s Death: 19 June 1584 ......................................................... 51
4.5.16
The Eighth War: September 1585 - April 1598 [TMAP Sc VXII-XIX] ............... 51
4.5.17
The Murder of the Duke of Guise: 23 December 1588 [TMAP Sc XXI] ............. 51
4.5.18
The Death of Catherine: 05 January 1589 ........................................................... 52
4.5.19
The Assassination of Henry III: 01 August 1589 [TMAP Sc XXIV] ................... 52
4.5.20
The Battle for the Crown: 1589-1594 ................................................................. 52
Plot Overview........................................................................................................................ 54
5.1
Dramatis Personae...................................................................................................... 54
5.1.1
List of Characters............................................................................................... 54
5.1.2
The House of Valois .......................................................................................... 55
5.1.3
The Catholic Nobles .......................................................................................... 58
5.1.4
The House of Guise ........................................................................................... 60
5.1.5
The Huguenot Leaders and the House of Bourbon .............................................. 62
5.1.6
The Huguenot Victims of the Massacre .............................................................. 66
5.1.7
Henry III’s Mignons........................................................................................... 67
5.1.8
Other Minor Characters ..................................................................................... 69
5.2
Plot Summary ............................................................................................................ 70
5.3
Scene by Scene Summary........................................................................................... 72
5.3.1
Scene Division ................................................................................................... 72
5.3.2
Quotations ......................................................................................................... 73
5.3.3
Scene by Scene Summary .................................................................................. 73
5.3.3.1
Scene I - The Wedding of Navarre and Margaret............................................ 73
5.3.3.2
Scene II - Guise Plots Two Murders and his Own Rise................................... 74
5.3.3.3
Scene III - The Queen of Navarre is Murdered; Coligny is Shot ..................... 75
5.3.3.4
Scene IV - Planning the Massacre; the King Visits Coligny............................ 76
5.3.3.5
Scene V - Admiral Coligny is Murdered in his Bed ........................................ 77
5.3.3.6
Scenes VI to VIII - The Murders of Loreine and Seroune ............................... 78
5.3.3.7
Scene IX - The Murders of Ramus and the Huguenot Schoolmasters .............. 79
5.3.3.8
Scene X - Anjou Accepts the Crown of Poland .............................................. 81
5.3.3.9
Scenes XI, XII - Coligny’s Body Disposed of, and a Massacre in the Wood ... 81
5.3.3.10 Scene XIII - The Death of King Charles IX.................................................... 83
5.3.3.11 Scene XIV - The Coronation of Henry III ...................................................... 84
5.3.3.12 Scene XV - Guise Discovers His Wife’s Infidelity ......................................... 85
5.3.3.13 Scene XVI - Navarre Learns of the French Army’s Advance .......................... 86
5.3.3.14 Scene XVII - Henry Baits the Cuckolded Guise ............................................. 87
5.3.3.15 Scene XVIII - Navarre Hails his Victory in Battle .......................................... 88
(v1.3) Page 4 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
6.
A
A.1
A.2
B
B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4
C
The Marlowe Society
5.3.3.16 Scene XIX - Mugeroun is Shot; Guise’s Military Threat ................................ 88
5.3.3.17 Scene XX - Navarre Conceives a Pact with Henry ......................................... 90
5.3.3.18 Scene XXI - The Murder of the Guise ............................................................ 90
5.3.3.19 Scene XXII - The Murder of the Cardinal of Guise ........................................ 92
5.3.3.20 Scene XXIII - The Friar Offers His Services to Dumaine ............................... 93
5.3.3.21 Scene XXIV - The Assassination of King Henry ............................................ 94
References and Further Reading ............................................................................................ 97
6.1
Bibliography & References ........................................................................................ 97
6.1.1
Collected Works ................................................................................................ 97
6.1.2
Editions of The Massacre at Paris ..................................................................... 97
6.1.3
Biographies........................................................................................................ 98
6.1.4
Marlowe Criticism ............................................................................................. 98
6.1.5
Journal Articles .................................................................................................. 99
6.1.6
French History ................................................................................................... 99
6.1.7
Marlowe’s Contemporary Sources ................................................................... 100
6.1.7.1
St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre Sources ................................................... 100
6.1.7.2
Sources for Subsequent Events .................................................................... 101
6.1.8
Other Referenced Works .................................................................................. 102
6.2
Internet Links ........................................................................................................... 102
6.2.1
General Marlowe Links ................................................................................... 102
6.2.2
Online Texts of The Massacre at Paris ............................................................ 103
6.2.3
Wikipedia Links .............................................................................................. 103
6.2.4
Stage Productions ............................................................................................ 103
Appendix A: Document Transcripts ......................................................................................105
Collier Leaf Manuscript Text ................................................................................................105
Collier Leaf Manuscript Facsimile Image..............................................................................106
Appendix B: Echoes from Other Plays ..................................................................................107
Henry VI Part 3 ...................................................................................................................107
Henry VI Part 2 ...................................................................................................................108
Edward the Second ..............................................................................................................108
Arden of Faversham ............................................................................................................109
Appendix C: Sir Henry Unton’s Letter to Burghley carried by Mr Marlin .............................110
(v1.3) Page 5 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Marlowe Society
The Massacre at Paris is without doubt the play of Marlowe’s that has received least attention
historically both from a staging and a critical perspective, and justifiably so. It is only extant in
what is believed to be both an abridged and ‘reported’ text, a single undated Octavo version,
published by Edward White almost certainly some time between 1594 and 1606. The result is a
play text approximately half the length of Edward II, The Jew of Malta, and each part of
Tamburlaine, mostly comprised of fast moving and bloody action, but lacking for the most part
much depth of characterisation or good quality verse.
There is however much of historical interest here. The play is virtually unique in addressing
contemporary European history, and indeed a sensitive political situation on England’s own
doorstep. The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, instigated by the French royal rulers and
Catholic nobles (including the Duke of Guise) saw the systematic murder and execution of
thousands of protestant Huguenots in the French capital in August 1572. Many of the Huguenot
leadership were in Paris for the wedding of their leader, Henry of Navarre, to the French King’s
sister Margaret. With the notable exceptions of Navarre and the Prince of Condé, virtually all
the Huguenot nobles present were exterminated along with a large number of ordinary
protestants living in Paris, including scholars, preachers, clergymen, and all manner of ordinary
men, women and children. It was a horrific act of mass murder that shocked the world,
especially neighbouring protestant countries such as England and the Netherlands. The terror
was more acute due to a good number of Englishmen in Paris who witnessed the butchery first
hand, including the Queen’s Ambassador Sir Francis Walsingham, and Sir Philip Sidney.
The massacre occupies the first half of the play, before Marlowe brings the story of the French
Wars of Religion up to date through the reign of Henry III. Indeed the climax of this play, most
likely written in 1592, covers some very recent history indeed: the murder of the Duke of Guise
and his brother the Cardinal of Guise in December 1588, and the subsequent murder in turn of
Henry III by a Dominican friar, Jacques Clément, in August 1589. This latest cycle of religious
and political assassinations left Henry of Navarre as King Henry IV of France, although it would
take another four years and the new King’s conversion to Catholicism before he could be
crowned.
To this close proximity in both geography and time is added the tantalising albeit silent
appearance of an “English Agent” in the final scene, summoned by Henry III to take a message
to Elizabeth, Queen of England. Marlowe’s involvement, at least in a minor way, in the
Elizabethan secret service is strongly suspected from various incidents documented in the
records. He appears to have been in Rheims during his university days, and there is even a
possible sighting of a ‘Mr Marlin’ carrying messages from the English forces in Rouen as late as
March 1592. Could Marlowe’s dramatisation of the English Agent be based on his own
personal experience as a government agent?
Another intriguing artefact associated with this play is the so-called ‘Collier Leaf”, a single
manuscript sheet on which is penned a part scene from the play where a soldier hired by Guise
shoots Mugeroun with a musket. The manuscript provides a much fuller version of the play text,
and, if genuine, offers a brief sight of Marlowe’s original play. The manuscript was discovered in
the mid 1820’s by John Payne Collier, who unfortunately is notorious for a string of literary
forgeries. Despite this, a number of eminent scholars have argued for its authenticity, which
raises an even more exciting question: is the manuscript in Marlowe’s own hand?
(v1.3) Page 6 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
This Marlowe Society overview of the play attempts to provide answers to those questions. It
also offers a scene by scene synopsis of the play together with pen pictures of each character.
Given the contemporary nature of the subject matter, the play is placed in context through an
outline of the main events and protagonists in the French Wars of Religion. Consideration is
given to the various contemporary sources that were available to Marlowe, as well as providing
some views on how Marlowe might have adapted them when writing his play.
The history of the play itself is addressed in sections covering the dating and authorship, as
well as the textual and stage history of the play. Our overview picks out some of the key
themes in the play, and also includes a synopsis of the different critical reactions to the play
since it was first written.
1.2
Document Conventions
1.2.1
Names and Dates
French names are given in their Anglicised form (e.g. Henry rather than Henri) because that is
how they appear in the stage directions and text of the original play.
Many, but not all, Elizabethan documents are dated according to the ‘old style’ new year which
began on 25th March. All dates in this overview are given in the new style. Thus a document
dated 16th March 1591 in the original old style, is here presented as 16th March 1592.
1.2.2
Play Text References
All lines quoted from The Massacre at Paris are identified via scene and line number(s) as used
in the [Oliver] edition of the play. The original [O] version of the play had no scene divisions.
Section 5.3.1 of this overview summarises the differences in scene division in the main
subsequent editions of the play by other editors.
1.2.3
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used throughout this document for convenience:
1.3
TMAP:
The Massacre at Paris, as in the play by Christopher Marlowe.
[O]:
The undated Octavo edition of The Massacre at Paris, published by
Edward White.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank and acknowledge the help, encouragement and expertise of both Roger
Hards (Marlowe Society Newsletter, Research Journal, and Website Editor) and Michael
Frohnsdorff (Marlowe Society Research Officer), in particular their thorough and timely review
and the improvements and corrections that resulted. I am also very grateful to Peter Farey for
his sharp-eyed proof-reading, and for a number of other interesting points raised.
I would also like to thank Eric Wirth at the Modern Language Association in New York, who
located and supplied me with a copy of Paul Kocher’s article “François Hotman and Marlowe's
The Massacre at Paris”, which appeared in Publications of the Modern Language Association
Vol. LVI (1941). All articles cited are listed in section 6.1.5.
(v1.3) Page 7 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Figure 1.3-1 - Title Page from the undated Octavo:
The Massacre at Paris: With the Death of the Duke of Guise
as reproduced in [Brooke-Works], 1910.
(v1.3) Page 8 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
2.
THE PLAY HISTORY
2.1
Dating: c.1592
The Marlowe Society
Compared to some of his works which are difficult to date precisely even within the author’s
relatively short working life, we can at least be a little more confident about when Marlowe
might have written the bulk of The Massacre at Paris.
The latest date by which the play can have been written can be deduced from what Henslowe
records1 in the following entry in his so-called “Diary” for takings from the performance at The
Rose on 30th January 1593:
ne-
Rd at the tragedy of the gvyes 30 . . . . . . . .
iij li xiiij s
The Tragedy of the Guise undoubtedly refers to Marlowe’s play, entitled The Massacre at Paris
when it was published but even then subtitled “With the Death of the Duke of Guise”.
Furthermore we have Henslowe’s intriguing marking of the play as “ne”, which whilst much
debated as to its exact meaning, is a label generally agreed to indicate that the play, version of
the play, or particular production, was new. As [Oliver] argues, “perhaps in this instance, where
there is no evidence of licensing or of any earlier production, by any acting company, of a play
with a similar title, it may be assumed that Henslowe was recording the first production of a new
play (and the exceptionally high receipts - the highest of the season - would confirm this).”2
The almost contemporary nature of the historic content of the play is also helpful in giving us an
earliest date for composition. The final scene depicts the death of Henry III, which occurred on
2nd August 1589, and so the play must have been completed some time after this date. This still
leaves a theoretical window of over 3 years, getting on for half of Marlowe’s working life. The
most plausible conjecture, however (if the production in January 1593 was indeed the play’s
opening night), is that it was largely written some time during 1592. In this case, it would be one
of Marlowe’s later works, with his death at Deptford coming exactly four months after this
opening performance of the play.
Tucker-Brooke sees in the even distribution of the historical content some confirmation of this
later date. “There is nothing to indicate that it was written very immediately after the
assassination of the French King [Henry III], for that event, which in a contemporary ‘topical’
drama would naturally have formed the mainstay of the plot, is here given very little importance,
while the principal interest centres about the ancient history of St. Bartholomew and the
animosities of Guise and Navarre.”3
The reported nature of the published text makes any attempt at stylistic dating very hazardous,
but [Oliver], although aware of this, none the less still sees “a style more informal than that of
even Edward II or Dr Faustus - and probably Marlowe’s development was continuously away
from the set speeches, monologues, and debate-like dialogue of Dido and Tamburlaine.”4
Neither of these arguments is particularly convincing, but 1592 still seems the most likely date
of authorship.
1
2
3
4
[Henslowe’s Diary] - p.20
[Oliver] - p.xlix.
[Brooke-Works] - p.440.
[Oliver] - p.lii.
(v1.3) Page 9 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
2.2
Textual History
2.2.1
Octavo Edition
The Marlowe Society
The only extant publication of the play text is an undated Octavo edition [O] printed by Edward
Allde for Edward White as recorded on the title page (see Figure 1.3-1 above):
THE
MASSACRE
AT PARIS:
With the Death of the Duke
of Guise.
As it was plaide by the right honourable the
Lord high Admirall his Servants.
Written by Christopher Marlowe.
AT LONDON
Printed by E.A. for Edward White, dwelling neere
the little North doore of S.Paules
Church, as the signe of
the Gun.
There is no entry in the Stationers’ Register relating to this publication.
Ten extant copies of [O] have survived. [Oliver]5 examined them in 1969 and found very minor
variations in the form of a few press-corrections, and listed the copies as follows:
•
British Museum in London;
•
Bodleian Library in Oxford (a copy once owned by Edmund Malone);
•
Victoria and Albert Museum in London (part of the Dyce Collection);
•
Pepys Library at Magdalene College, Cambridge;
•
Library of Congress in Washington DC;
•
The Folger Library in Washington DC;
•
The Huntingdon Library in California;
•
The Chapin Library in Massachusetts;
•
Two by private individuals (the White-Rosenbach copy, and the C.W. Clark copy).
Edward Allde (d. 1628)6 inherited his father John’s printing business on the latter’s death in
1584. He moved into his own premises in Fore Street, Cripplegate in 1593, leaving his mother
Margaret to continue her husband’s business at the Long Shop in the Poultry. The quality of his
work is not generally considered to be of the highest standard. He is perhaps best known for
his part in printing the ‘bad quarto’ of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet in 1597 along with John
Danter. He was fined for printing unregistered works, and his printing presses were twice shut
down. He often printed for both Edward Whites, booksellers father and son, throughout his
career, including editions of The Spanish Tragedy (1592?), Tamburlaine Part II (1606) and
Titus Andronicus (1611).
5
[Oliver] - p.lx.
6
See [McKerrow-Allde] for a detailed consideration of Allde’s printing career, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Allde for a
summary.
(v1.3) Page 10 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
2.2.2
The Marlowe Society
A Reported and Corrupt Text
It is almost certain that [O] is a corrupt and unauthorised text, most probably compiled from
memorial reconstruction by actor(s) or someone else involved with a production. Some
commentators have also suggested that the text might have been sourced from an abbreviated
form of the play taken on tour7. The following points are considered in coming to that
conclusion:
•
The extant play text is very short at 1,263 words,8 suggesting perhaps that some portion
of Marlowe’s original text may have been cut.
•
The speeches are noticeably short, with only one speech in the play running to longer
than 30 lines (Guise’s soliloquy in Scene II). Only fifteen speeches are 12 lines or
longer.9
•
The so-called ‘Collier Leaf’ (see section 2.3), purporting to be a single sheet from an
original manuscript version of the play, shows a fuller text. The soldier’s prose speech
comprises 169 words compared to 127 in [O], and the Guise’s subsequent soliloquy is
16 lines compared to the 4 lines in [O]. If this sheet is genuine, then the original play text
was clearly a more substantial body of work.
•
There are a significant number of “fill-in” lines, including those where a character simply
addresses another e.g. “My Lord”, “My good Lord Admiral” etc.10
•
[Oliver] comments that “one’s general impression is that many of the lines were
originally in blank verse that has been mangled,” and also that “there seem to be relics
of imagery that may originally have been striking but is in its present form confused.”11
•
There are a significant number of repetitions of lines or phrases, most of which do not
appear to be down to the author employing repetition as a deliberate technique for
effect.12
•
There are a number of examples of lines that appear in other plays, most notably 2
Henry VI and 3 Henry VI, strongly hinting at memorial reconstruction, perhaps by
actor(s) who have played parts in these other plays. Examples are listed in Appendix B.
•
The stage directions in many instances contain fairly full descriptions of the action that
is taking place, which might possibly hint at being reproduced from an actor’s memory,
rather than from, say, an author’s manuscript copy.13
It might be speculated, from the lengthy soliloquy extant in Scene II, that an actor who has
played the role of Guise has been involved in the textual reconstruction. If the ‘Collier Leaf’ is
genuine, however, then the significant shortfall with regard to the Guise’s speech following
Mugeroun’s murder, contradicts that conclusion unless the reconstruction was based on what
was already an abridged version of the play being used by a touring troupe of actors. But
whoever sourced the printed [O] text, almost all commentators agree that it is a corrupt
memorial reconstruction that represents a significant truncation of Marlowe’s original. The likely
quality of Marlowe’s original is another question altogether (and one addressed in section 3.3).
7
8
9
For example, Sara Munson Deats in [Cambridge] - pp.199-200.
This is approximately half the size of each part of Tamburlaine, The Jew of Malta, and Edward II.
[Oliver] - p.liii.
10
11
12
Ibid.
Ibid.
Some of the more stark examples are noted in the scene-by-scene summary in section 5.3.3. See also [Oliver] pp.liii-lv.
13
Sara Munson-Deats in [Cambridge] - p.200 - opines that “the elaborate stage directions ... seem to describe what the author [of the
reconstructed text] had seen performed. In contrast, [Brooke-Works] -p.441 - interprets that “the very full character of the stage
directions indicates that the text is based on a theatre copy”.
(v1.3) Page 11 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
2.2.3
The Marlowe Society
Dating the Octavo
Unfortunately Edward Allde rarely dated the works he printed, and [O] continues that trend. The
exact dating of [O] is difficult to determine, and it can only really be said that it was probably
published within the first dozen years or so after the play’s stage debut. The following points
can be considered in relation to this, although none provide evidence that enables a specific
dating of the publication:
•
Allde printed for the Edward Whites throughout his printing career.
•
The ornaments that appear in the edition were also used by Allde throughout his
printing career - both the woodcut design on the title page, and the capital ‘P’ decoration
that starts the text14.
•
Two lines from the Guise’s soliloquy in Scene 2 are quoted (albeit not quite exactly as it
appears in the [O] text) in England’s Parnassus (1600)15: “Daunger’s the chiefest ioy to
happinesses, / And resolution honours fairest aim”.16 However, these lines could well
have been remembered from a performance, and need not necessarily have been
sourced from [O].
•
A note in Henslowe’s Diary for 18 January 1602 records Henslowe paying Edward
Alleyn for three play-books, including “the massaker”. [Oliver]17 wonders whether this
might suggest that the play had not been published by this point. However, since [O] is
almost certainly an unauthorised and far from complete version of the play text, it may
not have precluded Henslowe wanting to purchase the official play-book even if the
corrupt [O] had already been published.
•
•
[Oliver]18 notes that Guise’s line “Yet Caesar shall go forth” (XXI.67) is also found in
Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, has no other known source, and that commentators
believe one text must be indebted to the other. If the recall of the author(s) of [O] has
been influenced by Julius Caesar, then the publication must have been after 1599 when
that play was first staged.
The title page of [O] records that the play is “as it was plaide by the right honourable the
Lord high Admirall his Servants”. Lord Charles Howard of Effingham, whilst holding the
position of Lord High Admiral of England from 1585 to 1619, was created Earl of
Nottingham in 1596. As W.W. Greg notes19, thereafter the acting company of which he
was patron was generally known as Nottingham’s Men. This might argue for a
publication some time after the play was performed by the Admiral’s Men through the
summer of 1594, but before the play was apparently reprised at The Rose in 1598.
However, this is not conclusive, and as Greg himself notes, there is at least one
example of a play text citing the Lord Admiral’s Men as late as 1600 (Look About You).
Despite this last observation, which must be the reason for [Nosworthy] referring to it as “the
ramshackle and surreptitious octavo issued by White between 1594 and 1596”,20 most
commentators plump for a later publication date. [Oliver] thinks 1602 most probable (“perhaps
shortly after Henslowe’s company purchased the authentic text from Alleyn”). Tucker-Brooke’s
14
See [McKerrow-Allde]
15
Englands Parnassus: or The choysest Flowers of our Moderne Poets, with their Poeticall comparisons, Compiled by Robert Allott,
1600 - p.48.
16
17
18
19
20
Noted by [Nosworthy] - p.170.
[Oliver] - p.xlviii.
[Oliver] - p.xlviii.
[Malone-Greg] - p.vii.
[Nosworthy] - p.161.
(v1.3) Page 12 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
view is that the publication “follows ... the last revival of the play in 1601,” and was perhaps
published around the same time as Allde published Tamburlaine Part II in 1606.21
However, since the evidence is generally ambiguous, it can be only really be stated with any
degree of confidence that [O] was probably published at some time between 1594 and 1606.
2.2.4
Subsequent Editions
Following [O], there was no printed edition of The Massacre at Paris as far as is known until
Oxberry’s edition in the early nineteenth century. Actor William Oxberry (1784-1824) printed
most of Marlowe’s plays individually in the years 1818-20, including The Massacre in 1818, and
then collected all the plays together in a single publication, The Dramatic Works of Christopher
Marlowe22 in 1827. Oxberry’s editorial efforts are deemed somewhat hasty by critics, and the
general impression is not enhanced by the title page which identifies the editor as “W.Oxberry,
Comedian”.
Thereafter the play was included in all the collected editions of Marlowe’s plays, starting with
Robinson’s Works of Christopher Marlowe published in 182623, and subsequently in the
collections edited by Dyce (1850)24, Cunningham (1870)25, Bullen (1885)26 and Tucker-Brooke
(1910)27.
Following the First World War, two more specific editions of the play appeared. First W.W. Greg
edited a version of the play for the series of Malone Society Reprints in 192828, and three years
later, H.S. Bennett published an edition of The Massacre alongside The Jew of Malta.29
Thereafter, the only specific treatment came in The Revels Plays series edition in 1969, in
which editor H.J. Oliver provided a detailed consideration of Marlowe’s two least performed
plays, Dido Queen of Carthage, and The Massacre at Paris.30
2.3
The Collier Leaf
2.3.1
The Leaf
The so-called ‘Collier Leaf’, or ‘Folger Leaf’, is a single manuscript piece of paper on which
someone has written out over both sides of the sheet, the first part of Scene XIX of The
Massacre at Paris in what appears to be an Elizabethan secretary hand. The fragment covers
the part of the scene in which the unnamed soldier (hired by Guise) is hiding, waiting for
Mugeroun to pass by, whereupon he shoots him with his musket. At this the Guise appears,
pays the hired killer, before declaring that this act was revenge against the King as well as the
cuckold.
21
[Brooke-Works] - p.441, although the typographical similarities between the Massacre and Tamburlaine publications have
subsequently been demonstrated to apply through much of Allde’s printing career, especially by [McKerrow-Allde].
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
[Oxberry]
[Robinson]
[Dyce]
[Cunningham]
[Bullen]
[Brooke-Works]
[Malone-Greg]
[Bennett]
[Oliver]
(v1.3) Page 13 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
One of many potentially exciting aspects of the leaf is that it transcribes a much fuller version of
the play text. The soldier’s lewd speech is around one third longer in terms of word count when
compared to [O], the dying Mugeroun is granted a line, and Guise’s subsequent speech is 16
rather than 4 lines long.31 This fuller transcript of one small part of the play appears to confirm
the firm suspicions that [O] is a corrupt and much abbreviated reported version of the original
drama written by Marlowe. We are further intrigued by the possibility that this transcript may be
part of the author’s ‘foul papers’, perhaps even written in Marlowe’s own hand. But all of this
must be tempered by a significant qualification: “if genuine”. The authenticity of the leaf is far
from certain.
Joseph Adams, Director of Research at the Folger Shakespeare Library between 1932 and
1946, wrote a forceful defence of the authenticity of the leaf, which he described as “a fragment
(7⅛ inches in height by 7⅞ inches in breadth) of a folio leaf (original about 12½ by 8 inches) of
foolscap, such as Elizabethan dramatists were accustomed to use in writing their plays. Since
the watermark - the well-known pitcher device - appears near the top, it is obvious that what we
have is the lower portion of the leaf; the upper portion, of approximately 5¾ inches, is
missing.”32
“We may assume that the writer tore off the upper [portion], and used [the remaining] part of the
leaf in order to secure a generous portion of blank paper. He made a neat folding at the left so
as to indicate a margin for catch names [i.e. the name of the character making the speech],
and, beginning with the word ‘Enter’, filled the page with writing; then, turning the leaf, added on
the verso nine lines, ending with the word ‘Exeunt’. The scene being complete, he left the rest
of the page blank.”33
2.3.2
Provenance
The leaf was first brought to the world’s notice by John Payne Collier (1789-1883), the
controversial nineteenth century Shakespearean critic, antiquarian, and forger. His introduction
(as editor) to The Jew of Malta for Dodsley’s Old Plays in 1825, includes mention of his
discovery of the leaf: “A curious MS. fragment of one quarto leaf of this tragedy [i.e. The
Massacre] came into the hands of Mr. Rodd of Newport-street not long since, which, as it very
materially differs from the printed edition, is here inserted literatim: it perhaps formed part of a
copy belonging to the theatre at the time it was first acted, and it would be still more valuable
should any accident hereafter shew that it is in the original handwriting of Marlowe”. 34
Unfortunately, Collier’s transcription was far from “literatim”, and proved to contain a large
number of small errors in relation to the actual manuscript, Adams hypothesising that it was
“perhaps hurriedly made in the dealer’s shop”.35
Six years later in his own publication, the History of English Dramatic Poetry, Collier indicated
that the leaf was now in his possession36, and he again transcribed it. Some of his earlier errors
were corrected, but not all of them.37 By 1879, the leaf was in the possession of another
Shakespearean scholar and antiquarian, J.O. Halliwell-Phillips (1820-1889), who fortunately
had the good sense to have “it carefully inlaid to prevent further damage, and handsomely
31
32
33
34
35
36
A full comparative transcript of both the [O] and leaf text is given Appendix A, along with an image of the leaf itself.
[Adams] - p.448.
[Adams] - p.449.
[Dodsley-Collier] - pp.244-245.
[Adams] - p.447.
[Collier-History] - p.133.
37
[Nosworthy] lists all the variations appearing in both of Collier’s transcriptions compared to the manuscript leaf text in his Appendix
1 - pp.169-170.
(v1.3) Page 14 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
bound”.38 He proudly referred to it two years before his death as “the only vestige of the tragedy
in the state in which it left the hands of the author”.39 Subsequently, the leaf was acquired by
Marsden J. Perry, who was assembling an impressive Shakespearian library in Providence,
Rhode Island, and from thence to one Henry Clay Folger. The document remains to this day
preserved in the archives of the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington D.C.
2.3.3
Authenticity
The authenticity of The Massacre at Paris manuscript leaf has been much and vigorously
debated. The origins of the document do not provide a promising start, with the uncollaborated
discovery in Rodd’s bookshop. Collier is far more notorious for his forgeries than he ever was
renowned for his scholarly work, of which there was also plenty. His musing that “it perhaps
formed part of a copy belonging to the theatre at the time it was first acted, and it would be still
more valuable should any accident hereafter shew that it is in the original handwriting of
Marlow,”40 immediately offers us a basic motive, and the lack of accuracy and consistency in
his two published transcriptions immediately makes us suspicious that he was in the process of
forging the document.
2.3.3.1 Tannenbaum Declares the Leaf a Forgery
Scholars were unable to view and properly examine the Collier Leaf until it found its way to the
Folger Shakespeare Library. Dr Tannenbaum was the first to produce a comprehensive
analysis of the document in 1933,41 which included over one hundred detailed notes on
specifics of the manuscript text. His view was categorically that the document was a forgery.
His assessment concentrated on the hand-writing, and to Tannenbaum, as one “thoroughly
familiar with Elizabethan manuscripts, the writing presents a hesitant character almost
throughout. When the writing is studied under the magnifying glass ... it is found that the scribe
made many of his letters slowly, deliberately, paused at many points, and often repaired his
strokes or the shading of individual letters.”
Tannenbaum was also suspicious of the inconsistent shade of the ink, which he noted “is
brown, conspicuously dark in some places, and very pale in others. It might be supposed that
the pale writing was due to the pen's running dry, but, in view of the fact that lines 26 and 27,
the last two lines on the recto of the leaf, are pale throughout their whole extent, this
explanation can not be right.” Tannenbaum wryly was “forced to conclude not only that the
scribe was following a copy, and that he was not skilled in writing the Elizabethan script, but
also that he was not an Elizabethan scribe.”
2.3.3.2 Adams Disproves Tannenbaum’s Evidence
Joseph Quincy Adams as Director of Research at the Folger Library had provided the foreword
to Tannenbaum’s book, of which just one chapter considers the Collier Leaf. But presumably
Adams had not read the contents before doing so, because the following year he produced a
stinging riposte in which he decimated Tannenbaum’s arguments at some length. Crucially,
Tannenbaum had largely worked from photographs of the leaf, “as he himself admits (p. 184):
38
[Adams] - p.448.
39
J.O. Halliwell-Phillips, A Calendar of the Shakespearean Rarities, Drawings and Engravings Formerly Preserved at Hollingbury
Copse, Near Brighton (1887)
40
41
[Dodsley-Collier] - p.244-45.
[Tannenbaum-Scraps] - pp.177-186.
(v1.3) Page 15 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
'At the time I was too busy with the transcription to pay much attention to the writing.' As a
result, he has had to rely almost entirely on photographs that were later sent to him.”42
In contrast, Adams’ job clearly provided him with unlimited direct access to the original, and he
flatly refuted Tannenbaum’s claims about the ink. “In the original, the ink is not 'conspicuously'
uneven in colour (i.e. quantity), save where the quill began to run dry and the writer dipped his
pen for a fresh supply.”43 Adams was also able to clarify that what Tannenbaum saw as “a
vertical crack or crease along [the leaf’s] whole length,” is not in fact present on the original,
and must be an illusion in the photograph. The original contains only “a bad wrinkling of the
paper, quite irregular, ... nor does it extend the whole height of the leaf”.44 Adams calls his first
witness at this point. “Mr. Horydczak, the photographer who made the reproductions for Dr.
Tannenbaum, and who, at my request, examined both the photographs and the original, states
that the ' darker' portions of certain letters mentioned by Dr. Tannenbaum were produced by
shadows from the wrinkle.”45
As regards the claims about the hesitant nature of the hand-writing that Tannenbaum sees as
clear evidence of forgery, Adams simply disagrees. “The scribe was not a copy-book artist, but
he wrote with fluency and speed, and employed throughout a consistent style, showing marked
individuality. There are, to be sure, instances where he corrected single letters (inserted in
error, or poorly made), and instances where he strengthened faint strokes when his pen
suddenly went dry, or momentarily failed to let down ink. Such corrections are inevitable; ...
further, as honest corrections, made with no effort at concealment, they tend rather to
guarantee the genuineness of the document than to convict it of forgery.”46
Adams calls his second expert witness, “Mr. Seymour de Ricci,47 who for some years now has
been engaged in examining and describing many thousand manuscripts anterior to the year
1600. Mr. de Ricci, after a careful study of the document, expressed 'astonishment' that any
one could regard it as a forgery; declared that 'if ever a manuscript was genuine, this one is';
and finally assented that he was willing to stake his reputation on its authenticity.”48 Adams then
goes on to deal with many of Tannenbaum’s detailed points directly, in most cases flatly but
persuasively disputing the latter’s interpretations, and citing the opinions of two more expert
witnesses.49 Finally, Adams addresses a number of points about the document as a dramatic
text, wherein Tannenbaum had argued that certain aspects could not have genuinely originated
from a dramatist (a stage direction in the wrong place; the inappropriate use of the words
“exterpatione” and “degestione”; that the absence of any corrections precludes this from being
the author’s working draft of the scene; Mugeroun’s dying words address Guise who has not
yet entered the stage; and the anonymous speech heading “Minion”). In most cases, Adams
provides comprehensive and convincing arguments against Tannenbaum’s points.
The effect of Adams article was devastating and without doubt demolished Tannenbaum’s
credibility. On the basis of this, and to a lesser extent Nosworthy’s article that followed, most if
42
43
44
45
46
[Adams] - p.454.
Ibid
[Adams] - p.456.
Ibid
[Adams] - p.457.
47
Seymour de Ricci (1881-1942) was indeed a highly esteemed bibliophile, born in Twickenham, London, but who moved to Paris in
his early teens. As well as his many detailed works on all ages of books, manuscripts and their provenance, he helped assemble some of
the most impressive libraries of old works, including Henry Huntingdon’s.
48
[Adams] - pp.458-459.
49
[Adams] - pp.459-463. The witnesses are “Dr. Dawson, who is now cataloguing the early manuscripts in the Folger Shakespeare
Library, [and] has carefully checked my observations, and agrees with them”, and “Mr. Robert L. Bier, for many years in charge of
repairing manuscripts at the Library of Congress,” who he cites on the effect of inlaying the original manuscript to preserve it (p.459).
(v1.3) Page 16 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
not all subsequent commentators state that the leaf is now considered genuine by scholars, or
at the very least that there is no evidence of forgery.50
It is perhaps worth noting, however, that whilst Adams comprehensively dismantles most (but
not all) of Tannenbaum’s arguments, it does not necessarily follow that this proves conclusively
the positive, i.e. that the document is genuine. Adams’ is far less assured when proposing his
own theory, that the manuscript is “a preliminary or tentative draft of a single episode, written
on a bit of blank paper that happened to be at hand.”51 This explanation is plausible but
speculative, is not supported by any evidence, and Adams provides little justification for the
absence of any corrections or annotations that one perhaps might expect to see in a working
draft52. It is also worth bearing in mind that Adams, as Director of Research at the Folger
Library, might have been deemed to have a vested interest in demonstrating that an expensive
manuscript purchased by that institute was indeed genuine.
2.3.3.3 Nosworthy Detects Marlowe’s Literary Footprint
Where Adams had largely concentrated on the authenticity of the penmanship, J.M. Nosworthy
wrote an article in 1945 entitled The Marlowe Manuscript which endeavoured to prove the
authenticity of the additional literary content revealed in the leaf. Nosworthy begins by
considering Tannenbaum’s suggestion that Collier’s transcription errors were “a forger's
desperate trick to throw dust in the eyes of experts”.53 He produces three examples of words
misread in the first transcription that change the meaning of the text, and which he asserts “can
only be the result of a very hasty perusal of the manuscript”,54 and would not have been
deliberately deployed by a forger.
He believed that these points, together with Adams’ arguments, are sufficient to prove Collier
innocent of forgery, and he doubts the motive for anyone else having done so prior to that. “It is
... practically impossible to allege any motive for forgery up to the middle of the eighteenth
century”,55 he conjectures reasonably, and even after that when “the fabrication of bogus
literary remains was, of course, a common practice,” he cannot see that any counterfeiter
would be moved to produce “an isolated forgery of a faked passage based on a corrupt text of
a minor play by a sadly underrated dramatist [that] was scarcely worth any man's attention.”56
Nosworthy’s main argument is based on a number of words and literary images that appear in
the additional manuscript text, which he believes constitute a vocabulary that would not have
occurred to a forger. These include “degestione” (verso line 30, an image that both Adams and
Boas had already justified as meaning digestion, or to dissolve with the aid of heat, that follows
naturally on from “in censte” and “hote” in the previous lines), “exterpatione” (verso line 32,
50
Laurie E. Maguire in Marlovian Texts and Authorship ([Cambridge] - p.46) states categorically that “It was once thought to be a
forgery, but current Collier scholarship has convincingly disposed of that canard.” [Steane] (p.236) opines that it “appears to be
genuine: no one can establish that it is written in Marlowe’s hand, but at least it is not one of Collier’s forgeries.” F.P. Wilson in
[Leech] (p.128 Note 1) notes that whilst it was “once suspected of being one of J.P. Collier’s forgeries, it is now accepted as genuine”.
[Briggs] (p.258) says that it was “once thought to be a Collier forgery but now generally acknowledged to be of the period”. A.D.
Wraight ([Wraight-Search] p.227) summarises Adams’ arguments, and quotes [Boas-Marlowe]’s support for the same. [Honan] (p.275)
states that “scholars accept it as Marlowe’s work, though it is not in his hand.” Slightly more circumspectly, Lisa Hopkins
([Cambridge] - p.288) says that “there is nothing intrinsically improbable in the ‘Collier Leaf’,” whilst [Oliver] (p.lviii) with a neat turn
of Marlovian ambiguity concludes “There is no reason to believe that the version of the MS is not exactly what Marlowe would have
wished to be acted.”
51
[Adams] - p.449.
52
In response to this point by Tannenbaum, he says only that “[a]lterations, however, especially in a scene that is mainly prose, would
be introduced in the final transcript.” - [Adams] - p.466.
53
54
55
56
Ibid
(v1.3) Page 17 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
ditto), “effecte” (recto line 23), “fondlie” (verso line 28), “frayed” (recto line 13) and “extreamest”
(verso line 30).57 He goes on to cite a number of examples of Marlowe using some of these
words and other images from the additional text in other plays. This provides evidence for his
belief in Marlowe’s authorship of these extra lines, but also serves to confute further the
arguments of Tannenbaum (who claimed echoes of Shakespeare) and Tucker Brooke (who
opined that “the wording of the expanded passage is very suspicious”).58 Nosworthy also shows
that some of these various examples occur elsewhere in close proximity, a Marlovian trait he
claims, wherein “certain words and images tended, by association, to group themselves
together in his mind.”59
The majority of the examples cited occur in either part of Tamburlaine. With the exception of
the variations on “incenst”, which Marlowe used widely, there is just one non-Tamburlaine
example cited, that of “fiery meteors" in Lucan. Nosworthy uses this evidence to assert that “it
is abundantly clear that the author of Tamburlaine was the author of the manuscript, and
Marlowe's claim to both Tamburlaine and The Massacre needs no vindication. It is unnecessary
to elaborate on the stages by which the theory of forgery has now receded beyond even remote
possibility.”60
2.3.3.4 Collier’s Interest in Tamburlaine’s Authorship
As Nosworthy therefore notes, if the leaf was a [late eighteenth or early nineteenth century]
forgery, “we must postulate a counterfeiter who was familiar with secretary script and with
Elizabethan orthography and punctuation, was at home with the Elizabethan vocabulary, and ...
was capable of reproducing Marlowe's style with astonishing fidelity while basing that
reproduction mainly on the two parts of Tamburlaine at a time when Marlowe's authorship of
them was repudiated by Malone, as later by Broughton [1830] and Robinson [1826].”
Unfortunately, although Nosworthy had already discounted Collier, this argument can be used
to undermine his own case, for John Payne Collier arguably satisfied all these criteria. He
certainly demonstrated a detailed familiarity with Elizabethan script, orthography, punctuation
and vocabulary during his long career as critic and forger, but he was also a strong advocate of
Marlowe’s authorship of Tamburlaine at a time when it was indeed being called into question. In
his History of English Dramatic Poetry (1831) he argues that “Christopher Marlow was our first
poet who used blank-verse in dramatic compositions performed in public theatres - that
Tamburlaine was the name of the play in which the successful experiment was made, and that
it had been acted anterior to 1587.”61 In response to the then current authorship debate
regarding that play, Collier cites “three pieces of evidence to show that Marlow was the author
of Tamburlaine the Great, two of which have never yet been noticed”.62 The second and third
pieces of evidence are respectively Gabriel Harvey’s line in relation to 1593: “Weep, Pauls: thy
Tamburlaine vouchsafes to Die” in Gorgon or the Wonderful Year, and the mention in
Heywood’s prologue to the 1633 edition of The Jew of Malta.
But his first piece of evidence is simply a complete and blatant fabrication: “The most
conclusive is the subsequent entry in Henslowe’s MS. Diary, preserved at Dulwich College,
which escaped the eye of Malone” which he then produces as follows:
57
58
59
60
61
62
(v1.3) Page 18 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
‘Pd. [Paid , clarifies Collier in brackets] to Thomas Dekker, the 20th of Desember, 1597, for adycyons to Fosstus twentye shellinges, and five shellinges more for a prolog to
Marloes Tamburlan: so in all I saye payde twentye five shellinges.’63
Collier goes on explain that this must be Dekker being paid for additions to spruce up these two
Marlowe plays which were to be played at court that Christmas, adding that “[t]his testimony
can be considered decisive”.64 This is so demonstrably a forgery, and not a very good one at
that, one can only assume that Collier never envisaged that Henslowe’s Diary would be made
available for the scrutiny of a wider audience.
So if Collier was prepared to go to such lengths in 1831 to prove Marlowe as the author of
Tamburlaine, it seems not beyond the realms of possibility that he might have produced a
forgery six years earlier that built on a play whose authorship by Marlowe was uncontested,
and introduced a small amount of new invented material that would infer the same author. This
would strengthen Marlowe’s claim to the authorship of Tamburlaine by showing the similar use
of imagery in a play known to be Marlowe’s, but at the same time add a sheen of authenticity to
the manuscript leaf through the same links in reverse to a genuine text. It has to be said though
that the additional Massacre lines, if they are a forgery, are much subtler and of a far better
quality.
It seems then that we have come full circle in considering the question of the Collier Leaf’s
authenticity. There has been as far as I know no attempt to analyse the paper and ink using
modern scientific techniques, and it seems the original document would benefit from further
analysis by independent Elizabethan handwriting experts. Until then, and despite the forceful
arguments put forward by Adams and Nosworthy, there must still on balance remain a
substantial question mark against the authenticity of the Collier Leaf. This remains on the books
as one of Collier’s possible earlier crimes, albeit one that he is yet to be proved guilty of beyond
all reasonable doubt.
2.3.4
Marlowe’s Hand
For those commentators who consider the Collier Leaf a forgery, there is of course no need to
consider further the question of whether the manuscript might be in Marlowe’s own hand. But
for those who consider it a genuine fragment of Marlowe’s working text, the next obvious
question is whether it could possibly be holograph.
Strangely, neither Adams nor Nosworthy address this point in any detail. Adams tentatively
puts forward the hypothesis that the manuscript represents “a preliminary or tentative draft of a
single episode,”65 perhaps one of Marlowe’s “foul sheets”, something “that dramatists
commonly worked with ..., composing individual scenes at various times as occasion
allowed.”66 If this is the case, “the natural inference, of course, would be that the writer was
Marlowe himself; yet, in the absence of any recognized specimen of Marlowe's hand, we can
not be certain.”67
63
64
65
66
67
Ibid
Ibid
[Adams] - p.449.
[Adams] - p.450.
Ibid
(v1.3) Page 19 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
This impediment was removed six years after Adams’ article, when in 1939 Mr. Frank Tyler
from Canterbury discovered the will of Katherine Benchkin, which had been signed as
witnesses by Christopher Marlowe along with his father, uncle, and brother-in-law in 1585.68
Figure 2.3-1 - Marlowe's signature from the 1585 will of Katherine Benchkin
Nosworthy writing in 1945, however, is unaware of the signature, or at any rate makes no
mention of it. Having demonstrated to his satisfaction that the Collier leaf “is a genuine
Elizabethan dramatic document,” he considers the next logical step that “[s]ince it clearly
belongs to The Massacre at Paris one is tempted to go further and claim that it must be
Marlowe's and that it may be in holograph. But this requires proof”.69 Indeed it does, but
unfortunately Nosworthy’s attempt to provide that evidence is somewhat flawed by his initial
statement of the problem, which considers as the only alternative to Marlowe’s hand “an equal
possibility that it is a draft made by one of those hacks who were employed, from time to time,
to write ' additions' to plays whose run extended over a number of years, as that of The
Massacre at Paris did.”70 This is the cue to provide his evidence regarding similar uses of
words and images in both the Collier leaf additions and Tamburlaine, from which he concludes
“the manuscript, then, undoubtedly reproduces a passage of Marlowe's work, and the balance
of probability is that it is also in Marlowe's handwriting.”71
This last conclusion seems a bit of a stretch, and Nosworthy’s subsequent statements seem
similarly less than justifiable. “It is obvious,” he adds, “that a fragment roughly written on an old
scrap of paper has no possible kinship with theatrical prompt copy, and one is compelled to
accept Adams's view that it is a tentative draft of a single episode. In that case, since Marlowe's
authorship is proven, there is not the remotest likelihood that it is in another man's handwriting.
If this is not in holograph, it must, of course, be a copy of Marlowe's original draft made by
some one who had some inconceivable reason for his inexplicable action. But the leaf looks
more like an original than a copy, for no copyist would be guilty of all the blemishes and
irregularities that it contains.” There are surely conceivable reasons why someone else might
have made a copy, and the ‘blemishes and irregularities’ he cites do not stretch to any
crossings-out or annotated revisions that one might possibly expect to see in a “tentative draft”.
A.D. Wraight was the first to compare the handwriting of Marlowe’s relatively recently
discovered signature with the manuscript hand in the Collier Leaf. She reproduces and
enlarges the individual letters of Marlowe’s signature, and compares these directly to “tracings
of these letters as found in a photograph of The Massacre at Paris leaf enlarged to
68
Kent Archives Office PRC 16/36. [Boas-Marlowe], [Urry] and others date the signing of the will as November 1585, but [Kuriyama]
establishes that it was in fact 19 August 1585.
69
70
71
[Nosworthy] - pp.163-164.
(v1.3) Page 20 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
approximately the same size.”72 Wraight concludes that “all the letters in Marlowe’s name
match extremely well with the playscript leaf, with the exception of the ‘r’ and to some extent
the ‘i’ and the capital ‘C’, and the change here is one of simplification of letter forms”,73 whilst
also suggesting that the variation may in part be due to the seven year gap in the two
documents. She also cites (but doesn’t reproduce) examples of multiple-letter combinations,
and adds that “[s]ignificantly, the pen pressure used in both the Marlowe signature and the MS.
is the same, as also the general flow of the writing.”74
Wraight also cites the “opinion of Dr. William Urry, who has inspected both, [that] there is no
doubt that the leaf and the signature are in the same hand, that of Christopher Marlowe.” 75
However, as far as I am aware neither Wraight nor Urry could claim to be a professional expert
in Elizabethan handwriting, despite their working familiarity with documents of the period. Whilst
some of the letters cited by Wraight look similar, it is difficult for the layman to be certain. The
single sample of Marlowe’s signature, whilst it is all we have, remains statistically a very small
sample, and we might also want to compare all examples of each letter as they appear in the
manuscript to get a wider view of the correspondence. Furthermore, although Wraight cites
Adams’ arguments at some length as evidence of the manuscript’s authenticity, she might have
taken heed of his warnings about relying on the evidence of photographs, especially in regard
to her statements about “pen pressure” and the “general flow of the writing”.
As with the question of authenticity then, the arguments remain inconclusive, and the debate,
such as it is,76 might once again benefit from some independent expert analysis.
2.4
Authorship
2.4.1
Marlowe as Author
Marlowe’s sole authorship of the play is uncontested.
His name appeared on the Octavo edition of the play almost certainly published within a dozen
years of the play’s debut at The Rose in 1592. Various performances of the play are listed in
Henslowe’s Diary, but as was his custom, the play’s author is not mentioned (Marlowe’s name
does not appear anywhere in the Diary).
There was one unconvincing attempt by William Wells77 to assign authorship of The Massacre
at Paris to Thomas Kyd, along with Edward II, Arden of Faversham and King Leir amongst
other plays. Nosworthy is scathing of Wells’ suggestion, which he says shows a “royal
disregard for the evidence of the title pages and style ... His evidence would convince nobody,
and if he is right, I must henceforth disclaim any ability to recognize Marlowe’s style.”78
72
73
74
[Wraight-Search] - p.230.
Ibid
75
Despite their general acceptance of the document as genuine, commentators are divided on their interpretation of the holograph
evidence. Some are uncertain: F.P. Wilson in [Leech] (p.128) says that it is “possibly in Marlowe’s handwriting,” whilst [Steane]
(p.236) concludes that “no one can establish that it was written in Marlowe’s hand.” Others are more categorical that it is not Marlowe’s
handwriting. [Honan]’s (p.275) opinion is that “scholars accept it as Marlowe’s work, though it is not in his hand,” whilst Laurie E.
Maguire states simply that “it is not in Marlowe’s hand.” [Briggs] (p.258) accepts that the manuscript is “in all probability by Marlowe,
though not (as was once supposed) autograph.” All of these are writing after the signature was discovered in 1939.
76
77
78
[Wells-N&Q]
(v1.3) Page 21 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
2.4.2
The Marlowe Society
The Dutch Church Libel
There is almost certainly a reference to the play in the so-called ‘Dutch-Church Libel’. This was
a notice that was posted on the wall of the Dutch churchyard in the Broad Street ward in the
north of the city of London during the night of 5th May 1593. It comprised 53 lines of rough,
rhyming verse albeit written in iambic pentameter, that was essentially a fairly crude and racist
rant against foreign merchants (”strangers”), their exploitation of the poor local inhabitants via
usury, rents, and the stock-piling of produce in times of shortage, and their perceived protection
by the state.79
The author of the libel makes reference to Marlowe’s work, signing it “per Tamburlaine”, and
indeed is possibly even trying to implicate Marlowe in some way. As well as references to the
“Machiavellian merchant” and Jewish usury, it also appears to contain a direct reference to
Marlowe’s most recent play:
We’ll cut your throats, in your temples praying,
Not paris massacre so much blood did spill
As we will do just vengeance on you all.
2.5
Stage History
2.5.1
Lord Strange’s Men at The Rose (January 1593)
As noted in section 2.1 in relation to dating the play, the first production of The Massacre at
Paris would appear to be one marked “ne”(w?) in Henslowe’s Diary80 for January 1593 which
records the takings at The Rose for a performance by Lord Strange’s Men, most likely with
Edward Alleyn in the cast:
ne-
Rd at the tragedy of the gvyes 30 . . . . . . . .
iij li xiiij s
Since the preceding entry for “titus” (Titus & Vespasian) is dated “25 Jenewaye 1593”, and the
following for “mandevell” (Sir John Mandeville) is dated “31 of Janewarye”, it seems certain that
the “30” in this entry is indicating 30th January 1593,81 which was a Tuesday.
This was a bad time for the theatres, with an extended and serious outbreak of the plague
forcing them to close for the majority of the two year period between June 1592 and May 1594.
Henslowe records no performance after 22nd June 1592 until a brief respite occurred with the
cold of mid-winter, The Rose re-opening on 29th December. But a renewed outbreak triggered
“an order from the Privy Council on 28th January [1593] for the suppression of all assemblies for
the purposes of amusement within seven miles of London”.82 Either news was slow to travel, or
Henslowe managed to slip in two more performances on 30th and 31st January before closing,
the first of these the debut of The Massacre. There was a similar respite the following winter
between 27th December 1593 and 6th February 1594, during which time there is no record of
The Massacre being played, before the plague finally abated and normal performances
resumed on Bankside from 3rd June 1594.
79
80
See [Nicholl] pp.284-89 for an analysis of the Dutch Church Libel.
81
Chambers cites this date as 26th January 1593 - [Chambers], Vol III, p.426 - and many other books do likewise. [Brooke-Works]
p.440 cites the 30th January 1593, which seems the correct date.
82
[Chambers] Vol. I - p.297.
(v1.3) Page 22 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
The takings of three pounds and fourteen shillings are the highest recorded in Henslowe’s
Diary for any of the 26 performance in that brief period (29th December 1592 to 31st January
1593), with only three other performances taking in three pounds or more: “Mvlomulluco” (£3
10s on 29th December, Muly Mullocco), “Joronymo” (£3 8s on 30th December, almost certainly
Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy) and another of Marlowe’s plays, “the Jew” (£3 exactly on 18th
January).
2.5.2
The Admiral’s Men at The Rose (1594)
When The Rose re-opened for normal business in June 1594, the two year plague closure had
brought about some reorganisation in the playing companies. After an uncertain partnership
with Lord Stange’s Men, The Admiral’s Men now “reconstituted themselves as an independent
company with [Edward] Alleyn at its head.”83 Alleyn had married Henslowe’s step-daughter in
October 1592, and the two men now formed a close business relationship, with the Admiral’s
Men becoming the pre-eminent company at The Rose hereafter.
The events in Deptford had occurred almost exactly one year earlier, but what seems to be
Marlowe’s final play had been seen just once at The Rose. Marlowe’s stabbing may have been
old news, but there was clearly demand for what was virtually a new play, perhaps helped by
events on the other side of the channel where Navarre had controversially converted to
Catholicism and finally been crowned King Henry IV of France on 27th February 1594.
Marlowe’s play was put on virtually every week during the summer, with two further
performances in September, as Henslowe’s Diary records84:
19 of June 1594
Rd at the Gwies . . . . . . . .
liiij s
(£2 14s 0d)
25 of June 1594
Rd at the masacer . . . . . . . .
xxxvj s
(£1 16s 0d)
3 of Julye 1594
xxxj s
(£1 11s 0d)
8 of Julye 1594
xxvij s
(£1 7s 0d)
16 of Julye 1594
Rd at the masacare . . . . . . . .
xxxj s
(£1 11s 0d)
27 of Julye 1594
Rd at the masacar . . . . . . . .
xxij s
(£1 2s 0d)
8 of aguste 1594
Rd at the masacare . . . . . . . .
xxiij s vj d
(£1 3s 6d)
17 of aguste 1594
xxs
(£1 0s 0d)
7 of septmb3 1594
Rd at masacar . . . . . . . .
xvij s vj d
( 17s 6d)
25 of septmb3 1594
xiiij s
( 14s 0d)
A steady decline in attendance can be assumed from the gradual decline in takings, and no
more is heard of the play for over 4 years.
2.5.3
Rose Revivals? (1598 and 1601)
After 5th November 1597, Henslowe ceases to record the plays being performed, instead only
recording the weekly receipts that presumably were his share of the takings. However he still
83
84
[Chambers] Vol. II - p.139.
[Henslowe’s Diary] - pp.22-24.
(v1.3) Page 23 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
recorded in detail various transactions relating to specific plays, including payments to authors,
as well as loans and payments for (work on) props and costumes. In this way we can see a
likely revival of the play towards the end of 1598 when William Bird (alias Borne) is given
money to buy stockings and embroider a hat, both to be worn by the Duke of Guise85:
Lent unto wm Borne the 19 of novemb3 1598
vpon a long taney clocke [cloak] of clothe the some
of xijs wch he sayd yt was to Imbrader his hatte
for the gwisse
} xij s
lent wm birde ales borne the 27 of novemb3 [1598] to bye
a payer of sylke stockens to playe the gwisse in
} xx s
lent wm borne to bye his stockens for the gwisse
} xx s
Similar outlay for costumes can be found three years later in 1601 when it seems the play is
once again being performed86:
Lent vnto wm Jube the 3 of novemb3 1601 to
bye stamell cllath for A clocke for the gwisse
the some of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
} iij
Lent vnto the company to lend
the littell tayller to bye fuschen and
lynynge for the clockes for the masaker
of france the some of . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
} xxx
Lent vnto the company the 8 of novemb3 1601 to
paye vnto the littell tayller vpon his bell for
mackeynge of sewte for the gwesse the some of
} xx
Lent vnto the companye the 13 of novmb3 1601
paye the littell tayller Radford vpon his bill
for the gwisse the some of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
} xx s
pd at the apoyntmente of the company vnto
the littell tayller in fulle payment of his Bille
for the gwisse the 26 of novmb3 1601 some
} xxiiij 6d
li
s
s
s
The final entry in the Diary relating to the play sees Henslowe purchasing the playbook from
Alleyn at the start of 1602 along with two others for the sum of six pounds in total:87
pd at the Apoyntmente of the companye the
18 of Janewary 1601 [i.e. 1602] vnto EAlleyn for iij boockes
wch wer played called the french docter the
massaker of france & the nvtte the some of
85
86
87
} vj li
[Henslowe’s Diary] - pp.76, 82
[Henslowe’s Diary] - pp.183-185
(v1.3) Page 24 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
2.5.4
The Marlowe Society
Modern Productions
Given the state of the extant text, it is perhaps not surprising that there have been relatively few
attempts to stage The Massacre at Paris since the original playbook was lost to posterity.
The same subject matter spawned a couple of plays in the late seventeenth century, The Duke
of Guise by John Dryden and Nathaniel Lee in 1682, and Massacre of Paris, a solo effort by
Lee seven years later. But neither are in any way related or indebted to Marlowe’s play.88
Some modern directors have, however, risen to the challenge of staging the play, and a few
well known actors have braved the Massacre. The famous English film actor Gary Oldman
made his stage debut at the age of 20 in a Glasgow Citizen’s Theatre Company production of
the play in 1981, whilst Lindsay Duncan joined the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1985 and
one of her first roles was in two performances of The Massacre at Paris played at The Other
Place, Stratford, in October of that year.
Some productions adhere to the extant play text, while others adapt the shell it provides and
take the opportunity to write substantial additional new material. Jeff Dailey, who directed a
production in New York in 1999 re-ordered some scenes, but stuck to the extant text with the
addition of the Collier Leaf lines. In contrast, young playwrights Tommy Murphy (for an ATYP
production in Sydney in 2001) and Alex Johnston (for a 2002 Bedrock Theatre Company
production in Dublin) took the opportunity to add their own material to Marlowe’s play.
Even in its abridged and reported state, the play does retain some strong Marlovian speeches
such as that of the Guise in Scene II, and for this reason The Massacre at Paris perhaps gets
aired most at reading sessions. The play was the subject of one of the Globe Theatre’s
excellent Read Not Dead sessions in September 2011, where a two hour seminar was followed
by some selected readings from the play.
The 450th anniversary of Marlowe's birth in 2014 did however trigger quite a revival. The
Fourth Monkey Theatre Company in conjunction with the Marlowe Theatre in Canterbury
staged three Marlowe plays in March, including a production of The Massacre at Paris on two
nights in the atmospheric surrounds of Canterbury Cathedral Crypt. In the same month, The
Dolphin's Back company presented a highly acclaimed and innovative staging of the play
directed by James Wallace running for 3 weeks at the historic Rose theatre on Bankside, the
exact same site where the play likely made its original debut 421 years earlier. Indeed this
production was such a success (selling out most performances) that it returned for a second
run in October 2014.
See section 6.2.4 for a list of selected modern productions of The Massacre at Paris.
88
[Oliver] - p.li.
(v1.3) Page 25 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
3.
INTERPRETING THE PLAY
3.1
Sources
3.1.1
Historical Material
The Marlowe Society
Although Marlowe’s play concerns recent events in French history that the author may have
had some loose second-hand knowledge of, it is clear that much of the historical detail that he
dramatises comes from contemporary and detailed documentary sources. Paul H. Kocher
undertook some meticulous research in the 1940’s, and his two definitive articles on the subject
identified two distinct sources:
•
[Kocher-Hotman] (1941) analyses the source material available on the St.
Bartholomew’s Day Massacre itself, and demonstrates that [Varamund] is the primary
(perhaps only) source;
•
[Kocher-Pamphlets] (1947) considers the contemporary news pamphlets available to
Marlowe that might have provided source material for the subsequent episodes in
French history dramatised in the second half of the play.
Before discussing the source material, the historical events that Marlowe dramatises can be
listed under those two headings as follows:
Massacre Scenes (all August 1572):
•
The wedding of the Huguenot Henry of Navarre to Margaret of Valois, daughter of
Catherine de Medici and sister of the French King, Charles IX (Scene I);
•
The death of Joan of Navarre, Henry’s mother (Scenes II and III);
•
The failed shooting of Admiral Coligny (Scenes II and III);
•
The planning of the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (Scene IV);
•
The murder of Admiral Coligny and the start of the Massacre (Scene V)
•
The massacre of Huguenots in Paris (Scenes VI, VII, VIII, IX, and XII)
•
The hanging of Coligny’s body (Scene XI).
Post-Massacre Scenes:
•
Anjou accepts the crown King of Poland (1573 - Scene X);
•
Charles IX dies (May 1574 - Scene XIII);
•
The coronation of Anjou as Henry III (February 1575 - Scene XIV)
•
Guise revenges his cuckolding (1581 - Scenes XV, XVII and XIX)
•
The Battle of Coutras and death of Joyeux (October 1587 - Scenes XVI, XVIII)
•
Henry III and Guise clash (May 1588);
•
The murder of the Duke and Cardinal of Guise (December 1588 - Scenes XXI, XXII);
•
The assassination of Henry III by Friar Jacques Clément (August 1589 - Scene XXIV).
(v1.3) Page 26 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
3.1.2
The Marlowe Society
Source for the Massacre Scenes
A number of biographers and editors had noted that some of the passages in [SerresCommentaries] bore a passing resemblance to material used by Marlowe in The Massacre at
Paris, from as far back as Bullen in 1885, through Bennett in 1931, to Boas in 1937 and 1940.89
But it was Paul H. Kocher who applied some academic rigour to these initial observations with
his article [Kocher-Hotman] in 1941, presenting a strong case that Marlowe used just one
primary source for his dramatisation of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in the first half of
the play.
Kocher’s research clarified that this source, Book X of [Serres-Commentaries] published in
1574, was not in fact written by Jean de Serres like the other Books in that publication, but was
rather a “word-for-word reprint of an account which had appeared in the previous year (1573),
A True and Plaine Report of the Furious Outrages of Fraunce, by ‘Ernest Varamund of
Freseland’ - generally believed to be a pseudonym for François Hotman, a renowned Huguenot
lawyer”.90 This document had been published in English, and was itself a translation of a Latin
original published in both Edinburgh and London earlier that same year. Kocher is further of the
opinion that “the close correspondence between the language of Marlowe’s play and that of the
English translation in some scenes favours the hypothesis that he used one of the two English
forms.”91 (For the sake of consistency, the source will be referenced as [Varamund] throughout
this document.)
Kocher analysed this and other contemporary accounts92 of the massacre that might have been
available to Marlowe, and identified a comprehensive “table of correspondences” where historic
details in Marlowe’s play can be seen to correspond directly with those in [Varamund]. He
further aimed to prove that all the other possible sources either don’t contain these details, “are
not as similar to Marlowe as [Varamund], or do not contribute anything not in [Varamund], and
consequently are not Marlowe’s sources”.93 This he achieved, with the exception of two small
details used by Marlowe in Scene V in relation to the abuse of Admiral Coligny’s dead body,
details which are not to be found in [Varamund], but which can both be found in [SerresColigny].94
The following table summarises the correspondences identified by Kocher95. The
corresponding source text from [Varamund] is in many cases quoted in footnotes in this
document during the scene by scene summary of the play in section 5.3.3. Kocher also noted
how Marlowe had adapted the order of certain events as they appeared in his source (and
indeed in history), and as a result was able to observe the author’s stagecraft at work.
1.
89
90
Play Ref
Corresponding Details in [Varamund]
I.1-5
Charles IX proposed the marriage between Margaret and
Navarre as a “most straight bond of civil concord” and “the
most assured testimony of [the king’s] good will to those of
Religion.”
Stagecraft
[Bullen]; [Bennett] - p.176; [Boas-Marlowe]; [Boas-Newsbooks]
[Kocher-Hotman] - p.350.
91
That is to say, [Varamund], or [Serres-Commentaries] as translated by Thomas Timme, which were identical. It has to be noted
however that the two examples cited later in the article (p.363) where Kocher believes “the translation of [the source material] into
drama is direct” are not beyond dispute, especially in the case of the murder of Seroune.
92
93
See a bibliography of the contemporary massacre source material in section 6.1.7.1.
[Kocher-Hotman] - p.351.
94
The first is that the Duke of Guise stamps on the “lifeless bulk” of Coligny’s dead body (V.41); the second that Coligny’s mutilated
body was finally hung at the Montfaucon, the place of public execution in Paris (V.45).
95
[Kocher-Hotman] - pp.352-362.
(v1.3) Page 27 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Play Ref
2.
I.18-26,
46-48
After the wedding ceremony, a mass was held inside Notre
Dame for Margaret and the Catholics, but Navarre remained
outside. [Varamund] corresponds exactly to Marlowe in the
companions outside. Also that the “Guisians greatly
abhorred the marriage”.
3.
II, III.4-5,
18-20
Joan of Navarre was killed with a poisoned glove prepared
by an Apothecary, which affected her brain.
4.
III.31-36
Admiral Coligny is shot in the arm, and that Coligny made
representations to the king (Kocher notes that details are
also in [Serres-Coligny]).
5.
IV.39-44,
50-58
Coligny sends a messenger to the King to request a visit,
and that the king promises justice.
6.
IV.59-65
Whilst at the bedside meeting, Cossin, the Captain of the
King’s Guard, is assigned to protect Coligny (albeit Anjou
gives the order in [Varamund]).
7.
IV.1-20
A full council meeting involving Charles, Anjou, Gonzago,
Tavaignes, Retes is held in which Catherine persuades the
King to authorise the massacre. Charles fears the
“judgement of foreign nations and of posterity”.
8.
IV.26-27
The “ordering and doing” of those carrying out the massacre
is assigned to the Duke of Guise
9.
IV.28-37,
V.16-17
Organisation of the massacre by Guise includes the “ringing
of the great bell” as the signal to start, those taking part will
wear a white cross pinned on their caps, and a white linen
cloth hung about their left arm. Also that Switzers are used
in the streets. None of these details are in [Serres-Coligny].
Marlowe’s addition of “a peal
of ordnance shot off from the
tower” is surely a crowdpleaser that can be satisfied by
the London theatre?
10.
V.30-35,
38-41, 5356, 42-47
Guise is in the courtyard below as Coligny is murdered, and
calls up to see if the deed is done before ordering the body
to be thrown out of the window. Guise makes sure that the
body is identified, and confirms by saying “I know him”. The
Admiral’s head is cut off so that it can be sent to the Pope.
The body is dragged around the streets for three days
before being hung up at the common gallows.
Gonzago kills Coligny to save
the need for additional
henchmen in the cast.
11.
IX.76-79
Navarre and Condé are sent for by the king, but meanwhile
their “company, servitors, friends retaining to them, their
schoolmasters, and those that had the bringing up of them”
are taken outside and executed. No other possible source
mentions the murder of Navarre’s school-masters.
12.
VII.1-4
“Leranne” is one of the Huguenots attacked, although
[Varamund] describes how he survives by taking refuge in
Margaret’s chamber.
Stagecraft
Joan’s death is moved to after
the wedding, and Guise is
responsible. Marlowe prefers
to open with a scene of great
pomp, whilst adding to the
crimes of his villain Guise.
By moving the visit to after the
council meeting in which the
massacre has already been
sanctioned, Marlowe makes
Charles IX hypocritical.
Marlowe adds Guise to the
attendees.
(v1.3) Page 28 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
3.1.3
The Marlowe Society
Play Ref
Stagecraft
13.
VIII.1-12
Monsorel goes to the home of a Huguenot called Masson de
Rivers, whose wife invites him in, only for her husband to be
murdered after he asks for the chance to pray first.
[Varamund] calls the victim Masson de Rivers, who lives in
Angiers, whilst Montsorel comes on the King’s
commandment and shoots his victim.
Its not clear why Marlowe calls
his victim Seroune - possibly
an error by the reporter. Again
Guise is behind Marlowe’s
murder. The use of a dagger is
specified in the [O] text.
14.
IX.81-85
Messengers are sent to the other cities of France, including
Orleans, Rouen and Dieppe, to extend the slaughter.
15.
IX.1-55
[Varamund] mentions in passing the death of Ramus. In the
same passage he describes pregnant women being thrown
into the Seine (c.f. IX.1-2).
16.
XI.14-18
Catherine visits the hanging body of Coligny. The body is
finally taken away and disposed of.
Marlowe has Guise
accompany Catherine rather
than her sons.
Sources for Subsequent Scenes
Paul Kocher turned his attention to the second half of Marlowe’s play, and analysed the
possible sources for the historical material subsequent to the massacre in his article [KocherPamphlets] published in 1947. The outcome of this research was far less clear cut in terms of
identifying a primary source. Kocher conducted “an examination of some fifty contemporary
pamphlets” and his over-riding conclusion is that many of the accounts, details and reports of
the events that Marlowe dramatised were to be found in one or more pamphlets.
The pamphlets examined inevitably fall into one of two camps: those espousing the Catholic
point of view (typically published in Paris) and those putting the Protestant case (typically
published in London). Kocher concludes in relation to the sources for the most recent events of
1588-9 that “protestant ideas are usually accepted, but it seems possible to trace [Catholic]
League suggestions in some details”.96 Kocher does not consider how Marlowe might have
come by Catholic pamphlets published in Paris, nor whether there might have been any risk in
possessing them.
As may be expected, the widest availability of source material relates to those most recent
events (the murder of the Guise brothers in December 1588, and the assassination of Henry III
in August 1589, dramatised by Marlowe in scenes XXI to XXIV).97 Although Kocher considers
the potential source material for the scenes in between, he concludes that “The presence of
pamphlet materials is still discernible, but it is much more blurred and harder to decipher. In a
series of jerky scenes, Marlowe moves rapidly down the main thoroughfare of French history
from 1573 to 1588. Those scenes which describe a specific event are usually lacking in
anything resembling the detail brought over from current tracts for the final four scenes. Others
are vague summaries of the developments of years. In increasing degree, Marlowe remains
faithful to truth of fact only in the large.”98
96
97
98
[Kocher-Pamphlets] - p.164.
See a bibliography of the pamphlets and related source material in section 6.1.7.2.
(v1.3) Page 29 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
He does though pick out possible sources for a small number of interesting details relating to
those scenes:
•
The hint by Catherine that she might be prepared to kill her son Charles IX (Scene
XI.39-40), although not carried through by Marlowe, could have been suggested by a
number of sources which mention the belief by some that the King was poisoned.99
•
An address by Henry III to the mignons at his coronation (XIV.16-22) is mentioned only
in [La-Vie-Henry-Valois].100
•
The King’s loving farewell to his mignon Joyeux, heading off to lead the French army
against Navarre at Coutras (XVII.1-8), is suggested by a number of sources, including
[Colynet-Civil-Wars].101 What is not mentioned by Marlowe (at least in the extant text) is
that Joyeux may have volunteered for the command to regain the favour of the King
after the massacre of Huguenots he committed at Poitou earlier in 1588. Some sources
mention this, although not [Colynet-Civil-Wars] explicitly.
•
The tense political relationship between Henry III and Guise following the Day of the
Barricades102 in May 1588 (Scene XIX) is covered by a number of sources, including
[Colynet-Civil-Wars]103 which describes Henry’s fear that Guise had “gathered a power
of men” (XIX.18), Guise’s popularity in Paris (XIX.67-74), and the decisions to discharge
the council (XIX.78) and remove to Blois (XIX.90). Interestingly Colynet says of Guise
that he sent letters to Henry in which “he must dissemble and make the words of service
and obedience sound highly”104 - Marlowe has Guise say in an aside “I must dissemble”,
before going on to offer “a token of my true humility” to Henry (XIX.61-62).
•
The claim by Henry III that Guise’s intention was “to make me a monk, / Or else to
murder me and so be king” (XXI.110-111) is suggested by a number of sources,
including Colynet, who says “Guise ... shall take the King and his mother, eyther put
them in Monkeries, or els to rid them out of this world”.105
Kocher also notes a couple of events in the play for which he can find no obvious direct
contemporary source material, most notably the cutting off of the cut-purse’s ear at Henry III’s
coronation, and more significantly the Duchess of Guise’s affair and subsequent revenge by
her husband. As regards the latter significant sub-plot, Kocher believes that “Marlowe had
some contemporary account of it in front of him while he wrote, but I am unable to discover any
detailed version of it earlier than about 1610.”106 Of course, in reality Saint-Megrin was the
Duchess’ lover, and was allegedly murdered in revenge by Guise’s brothers in 1581, but it is
plausible that Marlowe would cast one of Henry’s mignons (Mugeroun) in his place for his own
dramatic purposes.
99
For example, [Serres-Commentaries-Part4] Book XII p.125 cited in [Kocher-Pamphlets] - p.166.
100
101
[La-Vie-Henry-Valois] - p.27 cited in [Kocher-Pamphlets] - p.167.
[Colynet-Civil-Wars] p.154 cited in [Kocher-Pamphlets] - pp.170-1.
102
As Kocher notes though, Marlowe’s “treatment of the crucial Barricades affair is a sad example of missed opportunities. As
narrated by Colynet, Hurault, Davila and others, this crisis in French history was drama almost ready made, needing scarcely more than
literal translation to become a highly effective part of the play. Marlowe’s paraphrase of it (XIX.67-74, XX.1-3) must be confessed to
be wretched.” [Kocher-Pamphlets] - p.173. It seems highly unlikely that such a scene has simply been “paraphrased” by the reported
text.
103
104
105
106
[Colynet-Civil-Wars] pp.229-242 cited in [Kocher-Pamphlets] - p.171.
[Colynet-Civil-Wars] p.245 cited in [Kocher-Pamphlets] - p.172.
[Colynet-Civil-Wars] p.8 cited in [Kocher-Pamphlets] - p.311.
(v1.3) Page 30 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
As regards the final four scenes of the play dramatising those very recent events, Kocher
analyses a range of both Catholic and Protestant pamphlets (mostly published in the period
1588-92), and offers evidence that Marlowe has got his detail from one or more of them in each
case. The following table offers a summary of some of the more striking correspondences:
Play Ref
Event in Marlowe’s Play
Sources
1.
XXI.35-47
Henry III is deceptively obliging and
deferential to Guise, calling him “good
cousin” and “sweet coz”, knowing that
he is about to be murdered.
[La-Vie-Henry-Valois] pp.93-94
[Discours-Deplorable]
[Le-Martire] p.19
[Les-Meurs] p.30
The Catholic pamphlets were obviously keen
to emphasise Henry’s duplicity.
2.
XXI.67-70
Guise’s contempt in ignoring the
warning of the murderous plot against
him, although it is Marlowe’s invention
that this warning should come from the
murderer.
[Colynet-Civil-Wars] p.305.
[La-Martire] p.23
[Les-Meurs] pp.30-34
And others - see [Boas-Newsbooks] pp.18-22
3.
XXI.28-74
The details of Guise’s murder - the
Duke coming to see the King in his
room, the geography of the murder (the
succession of rooms), and the
involvement of the Captain of the King’s
Guard (one Loignac, although Marlowe
does not name him).
[Colynet-Civil-Wars] pp.308-9
[La-Martire] p.28
and others.
Note though that Colynet is unique in
presenting Guise as the aggressor drawing his
sword in the presence of the King. Since
Marlowe has not adopted this version, we can
at least assume that he was working from
other sources as well.
4.
XXI.87
Guise’s dying boast that “Thus Caesar
did go forth, and thus he died,” and
other passages in the play where Guise
compares himself to Julius Caesar.
[Boas-Newsbooks] p.22 cites a number of
examples of such comparisons in the Catholic
pamphlets, demonstrating that this is not
Marlowe’s original idea.
5.
XXI.98
One of the more quotable lines in the
play, where Henry III declares “I ne’er
was King of France until this hour” after
Guise has been murdered.
“Je suis Roy maintenant” - [La-Martire] p.30
[Cruautez-Sanguinaires] p.5
[La-Vie-Henry-Valois] p.96
“This day am I king” - [An-Excellent-Discourse]
6.
XXI.116-124
Guise’s son is brought in to see his
father’s dead body, before being taken
away to prison.
[Cruautez-Sanguinaires] - p.11
This is the only source that Kocher can find for
the son being shown the body.
7.
Scene XII
The murder by strangulation of the
Cardinal of Guise, the Duke’s brother,
including the rejection of his plea for
mercy as a churchman, and the
mocking of the Cardinal.
[Colynet-Civil-Wars] p.312
[Martine-Mar-Sixtus] - fol. E4v
[La-Vie-Henry-Valois] p.98 (plea)
[La-Martire] p.40 (mocking)
8.
XXIII.11-12
Dumaine refers to an attempt on his life
by the Governor of Orleans at Henry’s
instigation. In fact all the sources that
mention this state that Dumaine was in
Lyons at this time, so it is not clear why
Marlowe mentions Orleans - possibly an
auditory error (the pronunciation of
“Orleans” and “Lyons” sounds alike).
[Histoire-Meurtre-Guise] p.57
v
[An-Excellent-Discourse] fol. 21
The other sources that Kocher cites here were
published well after Marlowe wrote his play.
(v1.3) Page 31 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
9.
The Marlowe Society
Play Ref
Event in Marlowe’s Play
Sources
XXIII.27-28
The friar (Jacques Clément) has “been
a great sinner in my days, and the deed
is meritorious”.
r
[Martine-Mar-Sixtus] fol. D1
[Hurault-Anti-Sixtus] p.38
[Contre-League] p.52
Clearly the emphasis on Clément’s sordid past
is not mentioned by the League pamphlets, but
emphasised in the protestant pamphlets,
which also scoff at the idea that murdering a
king or prince can be meritorious.
10.
XXIV.23-24
Henry allows the friar in, arguing with
Epernoun that “our friars are holy men /
And will not offer violence to their King”.
The protestant pamphlets argued that
the friar was a cynical choice of
assassin for this reason.
V
[Martine-Mar-Sixtus] fol. E1
11.
XXIV.26
Henry asks “Friar, thou dost
acknowledge me thy King?” because
the Sorbonne had recently declared that
Henry III was no longer King.
[Colynet-Civil-Wars] p.348-349
[An-Excellent-Discourse] fol. 17
12.
XXIV.18
XXIV.30-31
The friar’s means of access to the King
is that he is carrying letters from the
“President of Paris ... humbly craving
your gracious reply”
[Colynet-Civil-Wars] p.404 - explains that this
is the first President of the Senate, named
President Harlay, one of the King’s party who
had been imprisoned in Paris.
13.
XXIV.33.1
SD
The friar “stabs the King with a knife as
he readeth the letter, and then the King
getteth the knife and kills him.”
None of the sources have the King kill the friar
(the guard rush in to do this) but a number
have the King defend himself with a knife,
although none with the same knife:
v
[La-Vie-Henry-Valois] fol. N2
14.
XXIV.74-76
The knife the friar used was also
poisoned.
r
[Martine-Mar-Sixtus] fol. E4
15.
XXIV.49
XXIV.55
XXIV.104105
Henry III summons the English Agent to
“send thy mistress word, what this
detested Jacobin hath done,” etc.
[Colynet-Civil-Wars] p.407 says “The King ...
sendeth for ... the King of Navarre, and for the
chiefest Lords of his court ... but specially for
the heads of strangers [i.e. foreign
representatives], to the intent that ... they
might know his last will.”
16.
XXIV.91-94
Henry III on his death-bed publicly
declares Navarre his heir. The
Protestant pamphlets asserted that
such a public statement is made, whilst
the Catholic pamphlets state he did not.
r
[Martine-Mar-Sixtus] fol. F2
v
[La-Vie-Henry-Valois] fol. N3 ff
As Kocher concludes, “All told, these four concluding scenes of the play bear the unmistakable
impress of strong and direct pamphlet influence. Protestant ideas are usually accepted, but it
seems possible to trace League suggestions in some details.”107 Although Kocher does not
single out any source, it is noticeable from the table above that [Colynet-Civil-Wars] contains
many of the key details for these scenes, although it cannot have been used alone (e.g. it
107
(v1.3) Page 32 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
suggests the Duke of Guise drew his sword and was killed in self defence, and does not
mention the display of the body to Guise’s son). If Marlowe did use Colynet as a source, it also
gives us a more precise dating for at least the authorship of these scenes, since the title of
Colynet’s collection clarifies that the material was “gathered from the yere of our Lord 1585,
until this present October, 1591.” The availability of this publication as a source would thus be
consistent with Marlowe writing the play in 1592, as suggested in section 2.1.
3.1.4
Marlowe’s Own Experience
One wonders whether any of Marlowe’s own experience provided input into the play, especially
with the tantalising appearance of the “English Agent” in the final scene. The Agent has no lines
in the extant play text, but is summoned to Henry III’s death-bed to take a message to Queen
Elizabeth.
There are records of Marlowe’s activities which suggest strongly that he was at least involved in
a minor way with the Elizabethan secret service. Whilst at University he may well have spent
some time at the seminary in Rheims as an English undercover agent. That is certainly one
interpretation from the letter that the privy council were moved to write to Cambridge University
regarding allegations that the student had spent time in Rheims, assuring the University
authorities of Marlowe’s “faithful dealing”, and that “he had done Her Majesty good service.”108
Marlowe is again seemingly involved in espionage activities in Flushing in January 1592, and a
similar view might be taken of his acquaintance with Robert Poley, a regular carrier of important
diplomatic correspondence, in the fateful gathering in Deptford on 30th May 1593.
Julia Briggs quotes English diplomatic correspondence sent back to the Queen by William Lyly,
who worked for the English Ambassador in France, Sir Edward Stafford, from 1583 to 1590,
with a message from the French King Henry III prior to his death: “I am sure the Queen, your
mistress, will be sorry for this, but I hope it shall quickly be healed, and so I pray write unto her
for me.”109 Briggs sees110 a similarity with the message that Henry requests the English Agent
deliver to Elizabeth in Marlowe’s play before he knows that his wound is fatal: “Tell her for all
this, that I hope to live” [XXIV.57]. On the other hand, this sentiment may well have been hinted
at by other sources.
If Marlowe was involved in the espionage services, even on a part time basis, it is possible that
he made (other) journeys into France. The Earl of Essex commanded an English force that
headed to Dieppe and was then involved in the siege of Rouen in 1591-2 alongside the army of
Henry IV. Messengers would have been needed to carry correspondence to and from England.
A letter written on 17 March 1592 by Sir Henry Unton, Queen Elizabeth’s Ambassador to Henry
IV, is recorded as being carried back from Dieppe to Burghley in England by one “Mr Marlin”.
Marlin has carried a letter to Unton from the English forces complaining of an urgent lack of
victuals on “her Majesties pinasses”, delivering it on 16 March, and Unton is worried that if
victuals cannot be supplied soon, the ships may be forced to return to England. Unton forwards
the written complaint (which has not survived) to Burghley, and adds a covering letter of his
own, via the same messenger Marlin: “this bearer also they send, by whom I thought good to
108
109
110
PRO PC2/14/381. The letter is dated 29 June 1587. See a transcript at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/pc_cert.htm.
Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Elizabeth XXIII, 394 (22 July/1 Aug. 1589: William Lyly to the Queen)
[Briggs] - p.271 footnote 38.
(v1.3) Page 33 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
write to your Lordship...”111 Marlin is an established variant of Christopher Marlowe's surname,
although it is highly unlikely that it is him.112
Sir Francis Walsingham himself was in Paris at the time of the St Bartholomew’s Day
Massacre. He was sent by Elizabeth on a diplomatic mission to negotiate alongside the
Huguenots with Charles IX, and soon after became Ambassador to France. He had regular
contact with Joan of Navarre during the wedding negotiations prior to her death, and his house
in Paris became a refuge for some during the Massacre itself. However, there is no evidence
that Marlowe had the kind of direct relationship with Sir Francis that might have facilitated the
sharing of recollections about those events.
These are intriguing connections, but on balance we can say no more than that the content of
Marlowe’s play is based on information that was available in the contemporary sources cited by
Kocher.
3.2
Themes in the Play
Once again, the reported and abridged nature of the [O] text makes it very difficult to see too far
beyond the remaining action-packed romp to any more subtle themes that Marlowe might have
worked into his last play. As F.P. Wilson notes, “the dialogue is stripped almost to the bare
bones of the action,”113 and as such the characterisation inevitably suffers. A number of
commentators have however considered some of the wider elements of the drama.
3.2.1
Violence
The alleged blood-lust of the Elizabethan theatre audience would most certainly have been
sated by The Massacre at Paris. The play, in what we might presume to be approximately one
half of its original length, still packs in a succession of shootings, poisonings, stabbings, plus a
strangulation for good measure. “No film director hungry for sensation could reasonably
complain about its ingredients,” notes Steane, “twelve occasions for murder on stage
(seventeen victims), a lustful duchess, a hint of perversion, religion . . . And all in an actioncrammed script not half the length of Edward II.”114
A number of modern commentators have questioned whether Marlowe’s use of excessive and
brutal violence was rather employed to make some more subtle thought-provoking point. Does
the endless cycle of violence and subsequent calls for revenge by both sides not serve to
underline the pointlessness of religious and state violence? As Sara Munson Deats notes, “the
bloodshed and betrayal come full circle, and the audience experiences a sickening sensation of
déjà-vu.”115
Julia Briggs sees two possible theatre responses to the violence. The first is one where “the
audience's reaction to the relished comic violence they witness will be one of disapproval, even
of intense disgust - the thud of the Admiral's body as it falls from the upper stage, the gratuitous
taunting and mocking of helpless victims, the preacher Seroune murdered before his wife's
111
The surviving letter from Unton is transcribed in Appendix C from [Stevenson] (letter CCVII pp.388-390). The suggestion that this
Mr Marlin might be Christopher Marlowe was first made by [Henderson] in a letter to TLS in 1953.
112
[Nicholl] - p.340. Charles Nicholl's research finds this reference is almost certainly to a sea captain, William Marlin or Mallyne,
who was paid 100s by Burghley on 23 March 1592 for bringing letters from France, and a week later returned to Dieppe with letters
from the same.
113
114
115
F.P. Wilson in [Leech] - p.129.
[Steane] - p.236.
[Cambridge] -p.201
(v1.3) Page 34 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
eyes - surely invite the pity of the victims' co-religionists, and the laughter and games thus
appear as the sick-making self-deceptions they really are.”116
The alternative, more traditional, view of an Elizabethan audience enjoying the on-stage gore
is, Briggs suggested, perhaps even more subversive. “The Elizabethan audience may have
reacted to the violence with excitement, as if they were watching real events, witnessing an
execution or participating in a lynching; so that they laughed with the murderers, thus freeing
themselves of responsibility and compassion, as the religious rioters themselves seem to have
done. Even so, such a reaction would have forced a Protestant audience to see the massacre
from a standpoint identical with that of the Catholic murderers, an insight which no other
dramatist was to give them and which, in itself, is surely a refutation of the claim that the play is
merely jingoist, a crude piece of Protestant propaganda”117
Judith Weil further finds an additional dramatic purpose here, wherein Marlowe “stresses
hypocrisy by frequent conjunctions of ceremony and violence.”118 She analyses a number of the
main incidents in the play, and identifies associations with religious rites or ceremony that add
an even darker undertone to the violence and murder. These include the initial wedding scene
(where “the Queen Mother vows to dissolve ‘this solemnity ... with blood and cruelty’” [I.24-25]),
the preparations for the massacre and the murder of the Admiral, the coronation of Henry III
(the cutting off of the cutpurse’s ear), Henry’s murder of the Guise, and the death of Henry III.119
Julia Briggs concurs, referencing an article by Professor Natalie Zemon Davis120 on the general
connection between religious rites and violence during the Wars of Religion to back up this
view. She also cites particular examples in the play where “objects, primarily those with
religious significance, are commonly involved [in the violence], being mocked, broken, or ritually
defiled, one underlying cause for this being the extent to which religious differences themselves
centred on the significance and meaning of particular objects.”121 One in particular that she
picks out is Gonzago’s words to Coligny before stabbing him, “Then pray unto our lady; kiss
this cross” [V.28], the cross referred to being the shape made by the hilt of the dagger.
3.2.2
Machiavellian Characters
Even if it were not evident from the abridged text of The Massacre at Paris, Marlowe tells us
himself that he viewed The Duke of Guise as a Machiavellian figure in his prologue to The Jew
of Malta122:
Machevil:
Albeit the world think Machiavel is dead,
Yet was his soul but flown beyond the Alps;
And, now the Guise is dead, is come from France,
To view this land, and frolic with his friends.
The Jew of Malta - Prologue 1-4.
‘Machevil’ himself is narrating, and now that his work is done in France, he is coming to
England to spread his influence. Such a fear existed in Marlowe’s time. “The anonymous
116
117
118
119
120
121
[Briggs] - pp.277-278.
[Briggs] - p.278.
[Weil] - p.95.
[Weil] - pp.95-100.
Natalie Zemon Davis, The Rites of Violence in Society and Culture in Early Modern France (London, 1975)
[Briggs] - p.275
122
This reference does not require The Massacre at Paris to have been written before The Jew of Malta. The prologue is referring to
the real-life event that was the Duke Of Guise’s death in December 1588, an event well enough known in its own right.
(v1.3) Page 35 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Huguenot who translated Gentillet123 into Latin in 1577 did so in order that Machiavelli’s
pernicious influence should not reach into England124, and similarly Case125 described with
horror the spread of Machiavellianism from Italy to France, and hoped it would not penetrate to
England.”126 Furthermore, as Oliver notes, “Gentillet did regard the Massacre of St.
Bartholomew’s Day as a prime example of the evil that occurred when the principles of
Machiavelli - ‘ce malheureux Athéiste’ - were put into practice.”127
But even without this clue from The Jew of Malta, the Guise’s lengthy soliloquy in Scene II
immediately and clearly establishes his Machiavellian credentials128, in essence his ambition to
ascend to the throne of France by whatever means necessary. There are further similarities
between the Machiavellian ideas expressed in both the prologue to The Jew and the Guise’s
soliloquy: the possibly atheist but certainly pragmatic idea of using religion for one’s own
ends,129 and the citing of Julius Caesar as an example both in terms of being hated130, but also
in striving to claim a crown they were not necessarily entitled to.131
Through this soliloquy the Guise is the most overtly Machiavellian, but some of the other main
characters in the play also exhibit similar tendencies. “Henry's shift from enjoying an active part
in the massacre to accepting Huguenot aid against the unforgiving forces of the League looks
opportunist, to say the least. If Protestant pamphlets viewed the Guise as a Machiavel, the
League pamphlets, among them some Marlowe may have used to provide particular details of
the Guise murders, saw Henry in the same light: an atheist and Machiavel, he wears alternately
the mask of the fox and the lion.”132 Henry’s avowal to be an enemy of Catholicism133 just
before his death is largely Marlowe’s invention, perhaps to accentuate his 180 degree turn from
a murderer of Huguenots in the Massacre. In fact, Henry maintained his Catholic faith to the
end, holding a death-bed mass, and although he did indeed formally name Navarre his
successor, he also urged him to convert to Catholicism.
Catherine de Medici too is the very epitome of Machiavellianism. In the opening scene,
Marlowe already has her plotting to “dissolve [her daughter’s marriage to Navarre] with blood
and cruelty” [I.25], despite the fact that she had instigated the match in real-life. The Queen
Mother is prepared to go to any lengths to maintain her position as the power behind the throne
of each successive son, hinting in turn that she is even prepared to murder both Charles [XI.39]
and Henry [XIV.63-66] to usher in the next in line who she hopes will be more bending to her
will. Contemporary propaganda on both sides of the religious divide quote her as telling Henry
that he “will not remain long in Poland”, and cite this as evidence that she did indeed poison
Charles. In the play, she prefers instead an alliance with the Guise (seemingly also Marlowe’s
123
Innocent Gentillet, Discours, sur les Moyens de bien gouverner et maintenir en bonne paix un Royaume ou aute Principauté ...
Contre Nicolai Machiavel Florentin (Geneva, 1576)
124
The Epistle Dedicatorie (dated August 1577) for the translation of A Discourse upon the Meenes ... Against Nicholas Machiavel the
Florentine, translated into English by Simon Patericke (1602).
125
126
127
128
John Case, Sphaera Civitatis (Oxford, 1588) - p.3.
N.W.Bawcutt (Ed.), The Jew of Malta (The Revels Plays, Manchester University Press, 1978) - footnote on lines 1-4 on p.63 .
[Oliver] - p.lxix.
[Oliver] pp.lxvii-lxx places Marlowe’s portrayal in the context of contemporary English perceptions of Machiavellianism.
129
“I count religion but a childish toy” - The Jew of Malta, Prologue, line 14; “My policy hath fram’d religion,” etc, The Massacre at
Paris, Scene II.62-66.
130
“Admired I am by those who hate me most” - The Jew of Malta, Prologue, line 9; “Those that hate me will I learn to loathe,” The
Massacre at Paris, Scene II.95.
131
“What right had Caesar to the empery” - The Jew of Malta, Prologue, line 19; “Let’s follow those that in France / hinder our
possession of the crown. As Caesar to his soldiers, so say I...” etc, The Massacre at Paris, Scene II.93-101.
132
[Briggs] - p.271.
133
Navarre ... I here do swear / To ruinate that wicked Church of Rome / That hatcheth up such bloody practices / And here protest
eternal love to thee, / And to the Queen of England specially, Whom God hath bless’d for hating papistry [XXIV.64-69]
(v1.3) Page 36 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
invention), which “seems natural enough since, according to the English view of her, Catherine
was Machiavellism incarnate, having been born and bred in Florence and coming from a family
indissolubly linked with that philosopher.”134
Navarre is perhaps the most disappointing character in the extant play, but even some of his
actions hint at a Machiavellian portrayal by Marlowe. On the face of it, Navarre is a onedimensional Protestant mouth-piece, his character variously described as the “merest
patchwork of Protestant commonplaces”135 and “a prig”.136 But as Julia Briggs notes, “since
what little he has to say is so unconvincingly sanctimonious ... it is tempting to interpret him as
yet another political operator, exploiting religious fervour to bring him one step nearer the
crown, in the manner of the Guise.”137
Judith Weil goes further138, describing the characterisation of Navarre as the best example of
“Marlowe’s ‘dark’ treatment of righteous hypocrisy.” “Why,” she asks, “does Navarre abandon
his tutors to the mercies of the Guise and Anjou?” When Charles dies, Navarre views the
“broils” at court as an “opportunity ... to steal from France ... and muster up an army secretly”
[XIII.30-32, 37]. He sees quite clearly that the Guise’s “aspiring thoughts aim at the crown, /
And takes his vantage on religion” [XX.22-23]. And of course, his play for a pact with Henry III
(who has just sent an army against him at Coutras in Marlowe’s telescoped timeline) is as
opportunistic on his part, as it is on the King’s.
Perhaps the playwright did in fact temper his desire to present all the protagonists as equally
guilty of the same sins due to the likely partisanship of his audience. “Marlowe may have felt
inhibited by Navarre's enormous popularity in this country where he was regarded as a hero
from the outset; his nickname - 'the Great' - certainly survived his conversion to Catholicism in
the year after Marlowe's death”139
3.2.3
Marlowe’s Irony
A number of modern critics do find the remains of a more sophisticated and complex plot still
evident in the extant text. Judith Weil finds “irony pervad[ing] The Massacre at Paris, an irony
less dependent on ‘hard’ allusions, more upon dramatic structure and implicit ideas.”140 She
argues that the character of Guise is a “focus and symbol for evil in other characters,” and
further that “two other major characters, Henry King of France and Henry of Navarre, mirror the
attitude of Guise.”141
All the major characters in the play are motivated by revenge. Guise is motivated by King
Henry’s personal slight in relation to his being cuckolded, and dies wishing “Sixtus, be reveng’d
upon the King,” [XXI.82] and also that the Huguenots will perish [XXI.86]. Henry in turn dies
urging Navarre to “revenge my death,” imploring his followers to “whet thy sword on Sixtus’
bones / That it may keenly slice the Catholics” (XXIV.95, 98-99). Navarre duly ends the play
vowing yet more revenge [XXIV.108]. Contrary to the common accusations of partisanship,
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
[Briggs] - p.272.
[Ellis-Fermor] - p.109.
[Briggs] - pp.272-273.
[Weil] - pp.89-92.
[Briggs] - p.273
[Weil] - p.82.
[Weil] - pp.85, 89.
(v1.3) Page 37 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Marlowe is characteristically ambiguous when it comes to casting hero and villain. “With
surprising objectivity, given his subject matter, he avoids imposing judgement.”142
H.J. Oliver also sees “one of the main dramatic skills of the play is the irony with which
characters and scenes are juxtaposed, as if to show the various forms of political ambition
cancelling each other out... The wheel comes full circle for Guise when the one murder for
which he had some ‘justification’, that of Mugeroun, leads to his own murder, ... for Catherine
when she is invited to join her son in gloating over the murdered body of Guise, and ... for
Henry the murderer when he in turn is over-confident and dies cursing the Catholic cause that
he has been fostering.”143
Other examples are identified by Sara Munson Deats. Like other commentators she notes, that
“in two of the most vicious killings in the play, those of the Admiral and the Guise, both Charles
and Henry visit their potential victims immediately before the assassinations and lull them into a
false sense of complacency by their deceitful assurances of protection, and the deaths of both
victims seems designed to invite audience sympathy.”144 She finds similarities with the Guise
and Henry III, the gratuitous murders committed by each, and the subsequent gloating over the
dead bodies. All these examples demonstrate “how the ironic structural parallels and
ambiguous character portraits of the play create an interrogative drama possessing a sufficient
number of typically Marlovian traits to make it of interest to students of the playwright.”145
But this view of a clever, topical satire should be balanced against the limited evidence from the
extant text. As Weil herself warns, “By suggesting that Marlowe wrote [The Massacre at Paris]
as an objective, satiric history, and that neither the play nor its intended audience were naïve, I
have risked over-rating both.”146
3.3
Critical History
The Massacre at Paris has generally not been well received by critics down the years. Early
commentators wrote the play off as not only largely comprised of moderate verse, but also
unstageable in its extant form, although most cited the corrupt text as the reason. TuckerBrooke is typical of this view, describing the play “in its present state much the least
meritorious” of all Marlowe’s plays. The “text is shockingly garbled; it would seem to represent a
theatrical abridgement, in which the poet’s language and versification have been corrupted on
nearly every page, while the very sense of the original can in several passages be only
imperfectly preserved.”147
Marlowe only began to interest literary critics in the early part of the nineteenth century, but
whilst there was no doubt that The Massacre belonged in the Marlowe canon, the state of the
text often meant it was largely overlooked. Collier, though, had some particular interest in the
play given his supposed manuscript ‘discovery’. But he is still not overly impressed. “We have it
evidently only in a very mutilated state, and possibly it was at best a very hasty performance
got up for a temporary purpose.”148 But whilst his opinion is that “it has no pretensions to
dramatic interest, and the incidents are confusedly treated,” he does note that “some portions
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
[Weil] - p.83.
[Oliver] - p.lxxii.
[Cambridge] - p.201.
[Cambridge] - p.200.
[Weil] - p.85.
(v1.3) Page 38 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
are, nevertheless, vigorously penned, and the character of the Duke of Guise is not illsustained.”149
Collier also cast the accusation that the play was protestant propaganda and that in it Marlowe
“appealed to vulgar prejudices”150, a claim that has been levelled by many critics since. Wilbur
Sanders, as late as 1968, took a particularly harsh line in this regard, accusing Marlowe of
being “a brutal, chauvinistic propagandist,” and labelling the play a “prostitution of art” in a
chapter entitled Dramatist as Jingoist.151 A detailed consideration by Julia Briggs challenges
this view directly. She points out that Marlowe’s use of [Varamund] as the only available source
for the events of 1572 inevitably coloured Marlowe’s portrayal, since it is “a work with a strong
Protestant bias.”152 She further goes on to demonstrate that for the later, almost contemporary,
scenes where Marlowe has a range of source material available, his interpretation is far from a
biased one. On the contrary, she believes that “the whole section of the play centring on the
murder of the Guise is actually treated, not from the Huguenot viewpoint at all, but from the
[Catholic] League viewpoint.” Briggs cites four aspects of Marlowe’s dramatisation that have
“the specific intention of swinging our sympathies away from Henry and towards the Guise and
the murdered Cardinal, his brother.”153 These are Henry III’s hypocrisy in giving “treacherous
reassurances” to the Guise immediately before the pre-planned murder; “the personal courage
shown by Guise in the face death”; the “gratuitous” display of the body to Guise’s son (a detail
only reported in a pro-Catholic pamphlet); and “the mockery of the Cardinal of Lorraine before
his strangulation.”154 Judith Weil concurs by further citing the characterisation of Navarre as
evidence against a pro-protestant bias: “if Marlowe had intended only to reassure and flatter a
Protestant audience, he would surely have made Navarre a stronger figure”.155
H.S. Bennett who edited an edition of the play (alongside The Jew of Malta) in 1931, just before
Adams gave credence to the authenticity of the Collier Leaf, was not impressed: “Bad as the
state of the text undoubtedly is, there is nothing about it that leads us to believe that, had we
the perfect text, we should have a great play. The Massacre at Paris is one of the weakest
plays of its day.”156 F.P. Wilson was a little more lenient, regretting “a reported text so maimed
in the reporting that criticism can only guess at Marlowe’s intention and achievement.”157 He
was however impressed at Marlowe’s brave choice of subject matter, “exceptional among the
plays of that date in being based on contemporary European history. It is a kind of plot which
Shakespeare did not touch.”158
But even after the papers by Adams and Nosworthy, critics who tried to imagine Marlowe’s
original play based on the glimpse afforded by the Collier Leaf were still not especially
impressed. J.B. Steane, for example, believes the additional material in the manuscript
indicates that what has been lost to posterity is “the places where attitudes might have been
shaped, and thought developed.” However, his view is “that the additional twelve lines are [not]
of remarkable quality. Another 200 or 400 of this sort would still not raise The Massacre to the
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
[Sanders] pp.20, 36 cited in [Briggs] - p.257.
[Briggs] - p.263.
Ibid.
[Briggs] - pp.265-267.
[Weil] - p.101.
[Bennett] - p.174.
F.P. Wilson (1953) in [Leech] - p.128.
F.P. Wilson in [Leech] - p.130.
(v1.3) Page 39 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
level of the other works.”159 Despite this, Steane still considers the Guise’s soliloquy in Scene II
as “one of Marlowe’s great speeches.”160
Oliver is impressed by aspects of Marlowe’s “sophisticated theatrical technique” in presenting
the massacre as “a series of murders of individuals in snapshot”.161 And after considering a
number of examples of Marlowe’s versification, expression and imagery, he provides one of the
more upbeat assessments of the play: “Perhaps there is evidence enough after all for hesitating
to accept the common opinion that even in its original form the play can have had little to offer
to a true admirer of Marlowe.”162
159
160
161
162
[Steane] - p.238.
[Steane] - p.239.
[Oliver] - p.lxxiii.
[Oliver] - p.lxxiv.
(v1.3) Page 40 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
4.
THE TRUE HISTORY
4.1
The French Wars of Religion
The Marlowe Society
Before looking at Marlowe’s play in more detail, it is perhaps useful to provide a brief factual
overview of this period of French history which sparked both the St. Bartholomew’s Day
Massacre in 1572 and the other events dramatised in the play.
All these events were part of the French Wars of Religion that took place between
approximately 1560 and 1598, a series of eight brief civil wars interspersed by mostly fragile
periods of negotiated truce. As the name implies, the primary conflict was between the two
religions, as a nascent and persecuted Protestant population in France sought some basic
religious and political rights, and the Catholic establishment moved to maintain their position of
power and dominance whilst eradicating heresy. This overall picture is occasionally
complicated (especially after 1572) by the political machinations and material self-interest of
individual nobles (some of whom were able to raise their own armies locally), as well as the
occasional uprising by the lower orders seeking social justice.
4.2
French Calvinism and the Huguenots
It was the teachings and writings of German priest Martin Luther (1483-1546) that provided the
catalyst for the Protestant Reformation in Europe, starting with his Ninety-Five Theses
produced in 1517. Luther took issue with what many considered to be clerical abuses in the
established Catholic Church, in particular the practice of selling indulgences (the remission
from God’s punishment of sin). In contrast, Luther preached that salvation or redemption was
only available through God’s grace, and faith in Jesus. He further challenged the authority of
the Pope by teaching that the Bible was the only source of divine knowledge.
Lutheranism was apparent in Paris by 1519, and was welcomed in some quarters by those
disenchanted with the current state of the established Church. For a brief period, Luther’s
writings circulated freely. Although soon condemned by the secular and ecclesiastical
authorities, the French King, Francis I (reigned 1515-1547), seemed initially prepared to
tolerate these views, as he had humanism and the ‘New Learning’163.
Many Protestants grew more radical and soon became dissatisfied with what they perceived as
Luther’s moderation. In 1534, Protestant dissenters publicly displayed placards and
broadsheets in a number of French towns attacking the Catholic doctrine of the mass. The
‘Affair of the Placards’, as it became known, triggered a repressive reaction from the French
authorities, and the attitude of the monarch changed. Legislation and persecution followed, and
a list of banned books was issued by the Sorbonne.164
Frenchman John Calvin (1509-64) studied theology, law and the classics in Paris before
converting to Protestantism by 1533. After the Affair of the Placards, Calvin fled to Basle where
he published the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536, a defence of his
reformist faith and a first statement of what would become the Calvinist doctrine. Calvin helped
to establish a prototype Protestant Church in Geneva, defining a constitution for the Church in
his Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541). Over the next two decades many Protestant exiles from
France (and indeed England during the reign of Mary) made for Geneva. An effective printing
press was developed that was publishing hundreds of titles by the mid-1550’s, and in 1559 a
Genevan Academy was set up to train missionaries and ministers.
163
164
[Knecht-Seminar] p.2
The Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris
(v1.3) Page 41 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Protestants in France needed help establishing their church. The level and harshness of official
persecution increased. After Henry II ascended the throne in 1547, the law was changed so
that the death penalty was now mandated in all cases of heresy. During the next three years,
over 500 heretics were sentenced165, and it was consequently no surprise that Protestants
gathered to worship in secret. Calvin’s Genevan Church was able to help, providing detailed
guidance on both doctrine and how to structure and organise a Church. Missionaries began to
be sent under cover into France to help set up churches from 1555, the year in which the first
Calvinist Church was created in Paris. In 1559, the first Protestant national synod was held in
Paris.
Although it is estimated that there may have been as many as 1,250 Calvinist churches by
1570, the Protestants remained very much a minority in France, unlikely to have ever exceeded
12% of the national population in this period.166 The reformed religion appeared most popular in
urban areas, especially with many nobles and the middle classes, perhaps reflecting the effect
of the written word. There were few converts in rural areas or amongst the peasantry.
Geographically, Protestantism was most popular in the south of the country beneath the Loire
river, although the communities were still dispersed. Normandy was an exception in the North
as having a significant Protestant population. There were few cities or towns with a large
Protestant population, although there were exceptions such as Rouen, Orléans and La
Rochelle.
4.3
The Start of the Religious War
Although the Calvinist missionaries initially tried to operate in secret, there were still clashes
such as that in September 1557 when a Catholic mob attacked a Calvinist meeting at a house
in the rue Saint-Jacques in Paris. Calvin himself preached against any violent resistance,
stating that prayer was the only permissible response. The peace of Cateau-Cambrésis in 1559
ended the series of Italian Wars fought by France and Spain, and enabled Henry II to turn his
attention to what the establishment viewed as the increasing problem of heresy in France. The
French Calvinists were growing in confidence. The conversion of many nobles also resulted in
the conversion of their followers, increasing the numbers of Protestants as well as affording
some level of protection for worshippers at meetings. Henry II outlawed the gatherings of
Protestants, and reinforced the application of capital punishment for crimes of heresy.
On 10 July 1559, Henry II died as the result of eye injuries sustained 11 days earlier when he
had been hit by a lance in a jousting tournament (ironically organised to celebrate the peace of
Cateau-Cambrésis). His sickly eldest son Francis II was crowned at Rheims, but at just 15 was
considered too young to rule alone, and a scramble quickly ensued to gain control of the king.
Henry’s widow and Francis’ mother, Catherine de Medici, was appointed regent. The
Protestants argued that as ‘Princes of the blood’,167 Antoine de Bourbon, King of Navarre,
should be given charge of the government along with his strongly Protestant brother, Louis,
Prince of Condé168. But it was the staunchly Catholic Guise faction that moved quickest, with
Francis, 2nd Duke of Guise, and his brother Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine, seizing power,
greatly helped by their position as uncle to the new king’s wife Mary (later Queen of Scots).
165
166
[Knecht-Seminar] - p.3
[Knecht-Seminar] - p.7
167
A Prince of the Blood was one who was legitimately descended in the royal male line outside the immediate family of the reigning
monarch (brother, son, or male-line grandson). The First Prince of the Blood stood to inherit the crown should the reigning monarch die
without such male heirs, as happened when the Valois line ended with the death of Henry III, and the Bourbon Henry, King of Navarre
(first son of Antoine de Bourbon) became King of France as First Prince of the Blood. It should be noted that Salic Law was upheld in
France, one of whose tenets was the exclusion of females from the royal line of inheritance.
168
The father of Henri de Bourbon, Prince of Condé (1552-88) who appears in Marlowe’s play. Louis founded the House of Condé as
a cadet branch of the House of Bourbon.
(v1.3) Page 42 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
The Guises stepped up the persecution of Protestants, soon passing laws that encouraged
popular involvement in the persecution of heretics. As a cadet branch of the House of Lorraine
(then a separate part of France outside the eastern border), the Guises were also denounced
as foreign usurpers by the Bourbons. In March 1560, a group of minor Protestant nobles
attempted to seize control of the young king at Amboise with the aim of persuading him to
remove his Guise ministers. But the attempt failed, and the conspirators were quickly captured
and ruthlessly butchered on the spot, some left hanging from the château’s balconies as an
example. It was following this Tumult of Amboise that there is the first evidence of the French
Calvinists being referred to as Huguenots.169
The Huguenot reaction began to intensify with attacks on Catholic churches, whilst Condé
began to form an army. Catherine de Medici and Chancellor of France Michel de l’Hôpital
strove to mediate and reach some kind of compromise agreement. Although Catholic, they saw
no need to persecute peaceful Huguenots who worshipped in private. Condé’s army was
another matter, and he was summoned to court and imprisoned.
The premature death of the Francis II from an ear infection in December 1560 stopped this
chain of events spiralling out of control, albeit temporarily. The Guise family ties with the king
were at an end, and Catherine de Medici was now able to seize more effective power as she
released Condé in return for Bourbon renouncing his right to the regency over the new 9 yearold king, Charles IX. The Queen Mother made valiant attempts to bring the two religious
factions together to resolve their differences, but when the Duke of Guise and some armed
followers massacred a group of Huguenots worshipping in a barn at Wassy (in eastern France)
in March 1560, war was inevitable.
4.4
The Three Factions
The three factions were now established that would remain prime groupings for the duration of
the Wars of Religion. Each had their own armies.
•
•
•
The Huguenots led by Condé, Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, and later by Henry, King of
Navarre. Despite their numerical disadvantage, they possessed the line of the ‘princes
of the blood’ which fell to Henry, King of Navarre in 1563, who thus became legal heir to
the French throne should the Valois line extinguish itself (which would happen with
Henry III’s death in 1588).
The Catholics led by two generations of the Guise family: first Francis, 2nd Duke of
Guise and his brother Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine, and then by the former’s eldest son
Henry, 3rd Duke of Guise, and his brothers Charles, Duke of Mayenne, and Louis II,
Cardinal of Guise. It is this latter generation of Guises that take the stage in the period
covered by Marlowe’s play.
The Royals led by Catherine de Medici, the Queen Mother, and the Valois monarch of
the day. Initially Catherine tried to steer a path of compromise, but the royal party
aligned themselves more strongly with the Catholic establishment after 1567, whilst at
the same time trying to maintain some control over the power of the Guises and other
leading nobles. Under Henry III in particular, the royal coffers were often unable to
finance the armies needed, leaving the king somewhat at the political mercy of the
Catholic League who were backed by Spain and the Pope.
169
The origin of the term Huguenot is unclear. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenot#Etymology for some of the possible
etymological origins.
(v1.3) Page 43 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
4.5
The Marlowe Society
The Key Events
The following provides a very brief summary170 of the key events of the French Wars of Religion
in order to place in historical context the specific events dramatised by Marlowe (which are
highlighted in red, with a reference to the relevant scene in the play171).
Figure 4.5-1 - Map of France at the Time of the Religious Wars (1562-1598)
170
Those wishing to learn more about the French Wars of Religion could do worse than read [Knecht-Essential] which provides a very
readable overview of the 40 years of conflict. [Knecht-Seminar] contains some more detailed essays on various aspects of the Wars
(including one on the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre) and also contains translations of some relevant contemporary documents.
[Holt] provides a more detailed study of the Wars, with particular emphasis on the Religious aspects.
171
As with the play summary itself and other references throughout this document, scene and line number identification follows the
scene division in [Oliver] - see section 5.3.1.
(v1.3) Page 44 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
4.5.1
The Marlowe Society
The First War: 02 April 1562 - 12 March 1563
The Massacre at Wassy and Guisian political manoeuvring to regain control of the government
prompted Louis, Prince of Condé, and his Huguenot army to capture the city of Orléans on 02
April 1562, which he used as a base whilst raising the call for more troops. He also sought
foreign aid from Elizabeth I, and the Treaty of Hampton Court in September 1562 enabled
English troops to occupy Le Havre as security for the agreed subsequent return of Calais to
English rule once the Huguenots were in a position to deliver it. Initially the Huguenots were
able to take a number of strategic towns along the Loire as well as Lyons, but towards the end
of the year the royalist army had completed its mobilisation and recaptured some of these
towns. In October, the Catholics decided to attack Rouen, which had been taken over by local
Huguenots. Antoine de Bourbon was killed at Rouen fighting on the Catholic side172, at which
point his son Henry became First Prince of the Blood.
The major battle of this war was fought at Dreux on 19 December 1562, with the Huguenot
army led by Condé and Admiral Coligny, and the Royalist army by Guise, Constable
Montmorency and Saint-André. The Royalists were victorious of a sorts, but there were such
heavy losses on both sides that such large-scale pitched battles were avoided in future. Condé
and Montmorency were taken prisoner by their respective opponents. In February 1563,
Francis, 2nd Duke of Guise, laid siege to Orléans but was assassinated by a Huguenot noble
called Poltrot de Méré who shot him in the back on 16 February. The Guises blamed Coligny
(leading the Huguenots in Condé‘s absence) for the murder, and there existed thereafter a
vendetta between the houses of Guise and Châtillon, a key factor in the supposed revenge
murder of Coligny by Guise that triggered the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. [TMAP Sc V]
The first war was ended by the Peace of Amboise brokered by Catherine de Medici, which
attempted to offer some religious compromise by allowing freedom of conscience whilst at the
same time restricting Protestant worship, but which in the event satisfied neither side. The
peace lasted four years, and at least allowed the French to unite for long enough to drive the
English out of Le Havre in July 1563. Charles IX’s majority was declared soon afterwards, and
he and his mother embarked on a lengthy two-year progress around the kingdom partly in an
effort to reinforce the peace.
4.5.2
The Second War: 24 September 1567 - 23 March 1568
An unfortunate chain of events led to the Huguenots planning a pre-emptive strike to gain
control of the royal court in Autumn 1567. The plot was uncovered, but Charles IX and his
mother were forced to take refuge at Meaux on 27 September, before fleeing to Paris. This
traumatic experience left a significant mark on the Queen Mother, who thereafter abandoned
her attempts at diplomacy. The two sides fought the Battle of St. Denis at which Montmorency
was killed, whereupon command was assumed by the king’s younger brother, the Duke of
Anjou, later Henry III. Despite a Huguenot victory, Condé and Coligny did not have the
numbers to move South and take Paris. With both sides reluctant to embark on further military
engagement, the Peace of Longjumeau was signed in March the following year, which lifted
some restrictions on Protestant worship.
4.5.3
The Third War: August 1568 - August 1570
Contrary to the Peace of Longjumeau, the Catholic armies remained in a state of readiness,
and Condé and Coligny soon became worried enough to take refuge in La Rochelle on the
172
It was Antoine de Boubon’s wife, Joan III of Navarre who held strong Calvinist beliefs and raised their son Henry in that religion.
Generally regarded as a weak character, Antoine changed religions a number of times before a final move to Catholicism. Joan III
became sole ruler of Navarre after her husband’s death, and remained largely neutral in the French civil wars up until 1568. Joan III is
the “Mother Queen” who is killed with a poisoned glove in Scene III of Marlowe’s play.
(v1.3) Page 45 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Atlantic coast in September 1568. The main royalist army led by the Duke of Anjou headed
west, but there was no direct conflict during the winter months. In March, the Huguenot army
left La Rochelle and were engaged at Jarnac, where Condé was once again captured. This
time, however, he was murdered by the captain of Anjou’s guard, and Coligny became
commander of the Huguenot forces. A Huguenot victory at La Roche-l’Abeille was followed by
a crushing Royalist victory at the Battle of Moncontour in October 1569 at which 10,000
Huguenot losses were estimated. But they regrouped during the winter, and embarked on a
successful march through the South of the country before heading north towards Paris up the
east side of France. Coligny encountered little resistance and realised the Royal armies were
insufficient to resist, enabling him to gain far more favourable and stable guarantees in the
Peace of Saint-Germain signed in August 1570, including the award of four security towns and
limited rights of worship for Huguenots.
4.5.4
Coligny’s Return to Court: September 1571 - August 1572
Having secured the most favourable terms yet in the Peace of Saint-Germain, Coligny and the
Huguenots turned their attention towards helping William of Orange and the Dutch rebels.
Coligny favoured an attack against the Spanish in the Netherlands over land, but needed the
support of the French government. Charles IX, somewhat jealous of the military reputation
gained by his younger brother the Duke of Anjou, and keen to demonstrate some
independence from his mother, also seemed keen on the idea, and even attended secret
meetings to discuss co-operation between the French, Dutch and English in such a venture in
July 1571.
His mother meanwhile was trying to arrange the marriage of two of her children. The first was
the marriage of her third daughter Margaret (1553-1615) to Henry of Navarre, seemingly in a
bid to bring some harmony between Catholics and Huguenots, despite many on both sides
opposing the match. Catherine also instigated discussions to marry her third son Henry, Duke
of Anjou (and future Henry III) to Elizabeth I of England, but this match largely foundered on her
son’s reluctance to marry a Protestant173.
For the first of these matches, Catherine required the support of Coligny, and he was
persuaded to return to Court, meeting the king at Blois on 12 September. Coligny soon began
to develop quite a hold over Charles, who approved a proposal for armed intervention by
France in the Netherlands only for his mother to overturn the decision. Catherine clearly
distrusted Coligny, whose position at court was made more precarious by the Guise faction’s
desire for revenge, and in March 1572 Charles was forced to declare Coligny free of any
responsibility for the murder of Francis of Guise in 1562. Another opportunity to come to the aid
of the Dutch was nervously declined by Charles in June 1572, causing Coligny to step up the
pressure, telling the king his choice was between a war against Spain and a civil war with the
Huguenots. The French government once more decided against intervention in early August,
but that did not stop Coligny beginning to mass troops on the border in Mons, a provocative
step that would certainly have alarmed the Queen Mother.
4.5.5
Death of Queen of Navarre: 09 June 1572 [TMAP Sc II, III]
Queen Joan III of Navarre was reluctant to approve the marriage of her son to the Catholic
princess, but nevertheless visited the Valois court at Blois where the marriage contract was
signed in March 1572. Unfortunately, she did not live to see the wedding day and died in Paris
on 09 June, whereupon her son became King Henry III of Navarre. It was later rumoured that
she had been murdered by a pair of poisoned gloves sent by Catherine de Medici as a gift, but
173
The Duke of Anjou and Elizabeth never met, and negotiations were conducted by intermediaries. This attempted match should not
be confused with that of Henry’s younger brother Francis in 1579-81, who by then was also the Duke of Anjou. It was Francis who
travelled to meet Elizabeth and so entranced her that she called him her “frog”.
(v1.3) Page 46 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
there seems to be no evidence at all for this174. Marlowe has the Duke of Guise murder the Old
Queen by this method, ordering the gloves from an Apothecary in Scene II, who then presents
the gift in Scene III resulting in the death of Queen Joan (see Section 3 on Marlowe’s sources).
4.5.6
Navarre-Valois Wedding: 18 August 1572 [TMAP Sc I]
Despite the widespread disapproval on both sides of the religious divide, the wedding of the
Huguenot Henry, now King Henry III of Navarre, and Catholic Margaret of Valois, daughter of
Catherine de Medici and younger sister of King Charles IX of France, duly took place at Notre
Dame Cathedral in Paris on 18 August 1572. It was followed by four days of celebrations that
included tournaments, banquets and grand balls. A wide array of both Catholic and Protestant
nobles were invited and attended the wedding and subsequent festivities, including Coligny and
the Guises.
On a public level the marriage was unpopular. As noted, Coligny and even Henry’s own mother
had been against it - the former supporting it only in an attempt to garner some political gains.
The Peace of St. Germain was extremely unpopular with Catholics, both politically and
economically. The Huguenots had gained rights to worship; jobs and homes previously taken
from Huguenots were to be returned; and Charles IX asked the staunchly Catholic Parisians to
pay 600,000 livres in taxation to pay off the mercenary troops who had come to the aid of the
Huguenots in the Third War175. Coligny had been paid a pension and readmitted to the
government, and Catholics feared that he was unduly influencing the royal policy. Now the
King’s sister was marrying Navarre, and Huguenot nobles were descending on Paris. Fanatical
preachers urged Parisians to slaughter heretics, and Simon Vigor (court preacher, who had
previously won the favour of Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine) prophesised blood-shed if the
wedding took place, “for God will not suffer this execrable coupling”.176
On a personal level, the marriage was also doomed to failure. Margaret loved Henry, 3rd Duke
of Guise, but her mother would never permit such a marriage that would hand so much power
to the Guises. A number of other proposed matches had come to nothing before the forced
marriage to Navarre. Margaret is credited with saving a number of Huguenot lives during the
massacre, including her husband’s, but Navarre was imprisoned by Catherine de Medici. It was
five years before they were reunited in Navarre, but perhaps inevitably the relationship was
stormy and both had lovers. Margaret returned to Paris in 1582, but her behaviour scandalised
the French court, and after a number of foolhardy enterprises, she was eventually imprisoned
by her brother Henry III in 1586. Her marriage to the by-then King of France was dissolved in
1599.
4.5.7
Shooting of Admiral Coligny: 22 August 1572 [TMAP Sc III, IV]
As Coligny was walking back from a meeting with Charles IX at the Louvre177 with an escort to
his residence, he was non-fatally injured in the hand and arm by a shot from the upper window
of a house. The would-be assassin escaped, but is uncertainly alleged to have been Charles,
Seigneur de Maurevert. It is similarly unclear whether the shooter was working alone, for the
royals, or for the Guises, although the house from where the shot was fired was owned by the
174
Roelker, Nancy L - Queen of Navarre: Jeanne d’Albret 1528-1572 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1968) - pp.370-394;
and Strage, Mark - Women of Power (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976) - pp.155-6. The latter cites an autopsy.
175
176
[Knecht-Seminar] - p.46.
Garrisson, Janine - 1572: La Saint-Barthélemy (Brussels: Complexe, 1987) - p.65 (cited by [Knecht-Seminar] p.45)
177
At this time, the Louvre was the main royal palace in Paris. Francis I (reigned 1515-47) renovated the site in the French renaissance
style and acquired much of the remarkable art that is today displayed in the museum (including the Mona Lisa).
(v1.3) Page 47 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
latter.178 As the Admiral convalesced at his lodgings in Paris, King Charles and his mother
came to visit him. Coligny opted not to leave Paris, but did ask the King for a bodyguard.
4.5.8
St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre: 24 Aug 1572 [TMAP Sc V-IX, XI, XII]
That the Catholics feared a violent reaction from the Huguenots to Coligny’s shooting is not in
doubt, and the murdered Admiral’s brother-in-law Teligny did assemble 4,000 troops just
outside Paris.179 Catherine de Medici met with the council on 23 August, including the Duke of
Anjou, Guise and the Italians Louis de Gonzague, Duke of Nevers (“Gonzago” in TMAP), Albert
de Gondi, Comte de Retz (“Retes” in TMAP), and René de Birogue (Keeper of the Seals), and
subsequently with Charles. The exact details of what was decided are not documented, but
many historians180 now assert that there was collective agreement to launch a pre-emptive
strike whilst many of the Huguenot leaders remained vulnerable in the capital.181 Later that
same day, the Mayor of Paris was instructed to secure the city gates and prepare the city
militia.
Early on the morning of Sunday 24 August, the Duke of Guise and other Catholic nobles
together with a group of the king’s guard forced their way into Coligny’s lodging and murdered
him [TMAP Sc. V], tossing his body out of a window. Guise had thus, as far as he was
concerned, avenged the murder of his father in 1563. Coligny’s body was allegedly
decapitated, and dragged through the streets for three days, before being hung from a gibbet
[TMAP Sc XI]. The co-ordinated murder of dozens of Huguenot leaders quickly followed,
although Navarre and his cousin Henri de Bourbon Condé escaped death.
Soon after the murder of Coligny, the tocsin of the church of St. Germain l’Auxerrois near the
Louvre was sounded, allegedly giving the signal for the massacre to begin. Much of the
Catholic populace began to hunt out and slaughter Protestants (men, women and children) in a
wave of blood-shed and atrocities. At 11am, the Mayor complained to the King, who issued a
royal command to stop the murder and pillaging. To no avail, and the massacre continued for
three days and more in Paris, as well as spreading to a dozen other cities throughout the
country. No accurate record exists of the full death-toll, but estimates range from 2,000 to 3,000
in Paris and 10,000 to 20,000 nationwide. A payment is however recorded to workmen to bury
1,100 bodies washed up downstream from Paris on the banks of the Seine.182 Amongst the
Huguenots murdered in Paris by the mob were composer Claude Goudimel and philosopher
Peter Ramus [TMAP Sc IX].
The official line given by King Charles IX on 26 August was that he had ordered the attacks in
response to a Huguenot plot against the royal family.183 Whilst undoubtedly sparked by these
orchestrated murders of the Huguenot leaders, the general massacre in Paris was largely
carried out by the civilian population. Whilst many contemporary Protestants perhaps
understandably believed the massacre to be premeditated, and some modern historians
concur,184 other commentators believe that it was not politically instigated but rather resulted
from the intense build-up of religious tensions.185
178
179
180
181
182
Bourgeon, JL - La Assassinat de Coligny (Geneva: Droz, 1992) is cited by [Knecht-Seminar] p.47 amongst others.
[Holt] - p.84.
[Holt] - p.85; [Knecht-Seminar] - p.48.
[Knecht-Seminar] - p.48.
Garrisson, op.cit. p.131
183
Lincoln, Bruce - Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual, and Classification (Oxford
University Press US, 1989) - p.98.
184
185
Bourgeon, op. cit. p.62.
[Holt] - p.86.
(v1.3) Page 48 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
The massacre obviously had a huge impact on the Protestant cause. Navarre and Condé had
survived, but they were imprisoned and forced to convert to Catholicism (Navarre would not
escape until 1576). With many of their leaders eliminated and thousands of Protestant civilians
murdered, many fearful Huguenots abjured their faith and converted to Catholicism.186 Others
chose to emigrate, with England187 the most popular destination, although some headed to
Zeeland and Geneva. Nevertheless, significant Huguenot communities survived in the south
and west of the country, especially in their stronghold towns, such as La Rochelle and
Montauban.
4.5.9
The Fourth War: October 1572 - July 1573
As the Huguenots regrouped, Charles IX attempted to reinforce the Catholic position of
domination by gaining control of La Rochelle by negotiation. When this failed, the Duke of
Anjou was charged with regaining the city via a military siege. However, a combination of bad
weather through the winter, delays in supplies arriving, and stout resistance from the defenders
saw the siege drag on into the early summer. Some poor tactical decisions, a high casualty
rate, desertions, disease, and the rapid emptying of the Royal treasury left Anjou frustrated and
unsuccessful. It was thus with some relief that he found out that he had been elected King of
Poland [TMAP Sc X]. Since that country had a sizable Protestant minority, there was pressure
on Anjou to end the siege. A truce was quickly followed by the Peace of La Rochelle signed on
2 July 1573. The somewhat unsatisfactory peace encouraged the Huguenots to continue their
regrouping in the South and West of the country. Huguenot assemblies later in 1573 led to the
establishment of a Protestant Union comprising a self-declared independent state with its own
Protector, the Prince of Condé, appointed in July 1574.
4.5.10 The Death of Charles IX: 30 May 1574 [TMAP Sc XIII]
Affected by the horrors of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre for which he blamed himself at
times, the physical and mental state of Charles IX deteriorated during 1574 and he died on 30
May 1574 [TMAP Sc XIII]. Before dying, possibly in an attempt to clear his conscience, he
called Henry of Navarre to him and declared “I always loved you... I trust you alone to look after
my wife and daughter. Pray God for me. Farewell.”188
The Duke of Anjou, who had only arrived in Poland in January, ended a brief and unhappy
reign by secretly departing and returning to France (Marlowe invents a covenant agreed when
accepting the crown of Poland that he would be allowed to return to France in the event of
Charles’ death [TMAP Sc X], but there is no record of any such agreement). The coronation of
Henry III took place at Rheims Cathedral on 13 February 1575 [TMAP Sc XIV]. The following
day he married Louise of Lorraine, but the couple would remain childless.
4.5.11 The Fifth War: September 1575 - May 1576
In June 1574, Montmorency-Damville who had been appointed by Charles IX as governor of
Languedoc to re-conquer areas in the South, was relieved of his command by Catherine de
Medici and promptly joined the Huguenots and their nascent independent state. When Henry III
returned to France in September, he tried to persuade Damville to return to the Catholic fold,
who responded only with criticisms about the royal advisors. Damville was one example of the
so-called ‘Malcontents’, a set of nobles who became somewhat disenchanted with the religious
186
[Knecht-Seminar] quotes 5,000 Huguenots in Paris and 3,000 in Rouen converting to Catholicism in the immediate aftermath of the
massacre - p.52.
187
Many headed to Canterbury in Kent, where the 8 year old Marlowe lived. Canterbury already had an established Calvinist
community, and Edward VI had earlier granted them use of the Western crypt in the Cathedral for worship.
188
Guizot F., The History of France, Vol. III, (London, 1887) - p.415.
(v1.3) Page 49 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
strife after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, and were resolved to pursue political rather
than religious solutions.
In September 1575, Francis, Duke of Alençon, fled the court and made similar demands to
Damville. The Malcontents were greatly boosted by the support of the man who was now heir
to the French throne, who also began to raise troops. Catherine de Medici attempted to
negotiate a truce with her youngest son, but the concession of further security towns to Alençon
and Condé were not accepted by the governors, who refused to hand them over.
On 5 February 1576, Henry of Navarre finally escaped his confinement in the French court
[TMAP Sc XIII] and also began raising an army. This combined threat forced the Queen
Mother to the negotiating table again, and the Edict of Beaulieu189 was signed with the
Malcontents on 6 May 1576 that granted freedom of worship throughout the country for the first
time, and condemned the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre as a crime. Alençon was also
made Duke of Anjou.
4.5.12 The Sixth War: March-September 1577
The Catholics viewed the Edict of Beaulieu as a humiliation, and the Catholic League was
formed. The King generally shared their view and raised a small army, despite restricted funds.
Damville and Anjou (Alençon) were back in the fold, and the latter led the army with the Duke of
Nevers (“Gonzago” in TMAP) that laid siege to the towns of La Charité and Issoire, sacking
each after surrender. The King could not afford any more ambitious military projects, but was at
least in a stronger position when the Peace of Bergerac was signed in September, and certain
Huguenot rights of worship were revoked.
4.5.13 The Seventh War: November 1579 - November 1580
This conflict was largely a series of peasant revolts in the south-east of France, but there was
also fighting between Condé and the Duke of Aumale (Guise’s cousin) over the former’s
appointment as Governor of Picardy.
4.5.14 The Rise of Henry’s Mignons: 1576 Onwards
‘Les Mignons‘190 was a derogatory term applied to a group of King Henry III’s favourites, who
rose to positions of prominence soon after the new king ascended to the throne. Their
effeminate appearance and hedonistic life-styles earned much criticism from Henry’s political
enemies (including the Malcontents), and together with his failure to bear an heir and his
general dislike of war, earned the king a reputation as a homosexual (or at least a bisexual)
that has been argued over by historians ever since.
Henry’s mignons included the Duke of Epernon (“Epernoun” in TMAP), whom the king first met
fighting at the Siege of La Rochelle, and the Duke of Joyeuse (“Joyeux” in TMAP), another
military man whose wedding celebrations in 1581 epitomised the extravagance of Henry’s
court. Louis de Maugiron (“Mugeroun” in TMAP) was another of Henry’s favourites who died
pointlessly in the so-called ‘Duel of the Mignons’ in April 1578, when the rival court parties of
the king and the Duke of Guise decided to re-enact the Roman battle between the Horatii and
Curatii triplets, resulting in the death of four of the six participants, and serious injury to one
other.
189
Known as the ‘Peace of Monsieur’ since it was thought to have been forced on the King by Alençon, whose title as heir to the
throne was ‘Monsieur’.
190
The term translates as “the darlings” or “the dainty ones”.
(v1.3) Page 50 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
The contemporary journal of Pierre de l’Estoile191 summarises the reasons behind the popular
dislike of les Mignons, who were viewed as “exceedingly odious, as much by their foolish and
haughty demeanour, as by their effeminate and immodest dress, but above all by the immense
gifts the king made to them.” “Their occupations are gambling, blaspheming, ... fornicating and
following the king everywhere, seeking to please him in everything they do or say.”
Marlowe has Catherine de Medici allude to Henry’s Mignons as a distraction that will enable her
and Guise to maintain effective power [TMAP Sc XIV]: “His mind, you see, runs on his minions
/ And all his heaven is to delight himself” (lines 45-46).
Another Mignon was Paul de Stuer de Caussade, Marquis de Saint-Mégrin, who conducted an
affair with Catherine, Duchess of Guise, and wife of the Duke. He was murdered as he walked
back from the Louvre in 1581, stabbed in 35 places, in a revenge attack allegedly organised by
the Duke’s brothers. Marlowe casts another minion, “Mugeroun”, as the adulterous Duchess’
lover [TMAP Sc XV] against whom the Duke vows revenge after the king brands him a cuckold
[TMAP Sc XVII], and for whom he hires a soldier to murder [TMAP Sc XIX].
4.5.15 The Duke of Anjou’s Death: 19 June 1584
After some ill-conceived military ventures in the low countries, Francis, Duke of Anjou, returned
to France and soon fell ill with malaria, dying in June 1584. With the king still childless, the
Huguenot King of Navarre became heir to the throne, causing a succession crisis for the
Catholics. By the end of the year, the Catholic League led by the Duke of Guise had signed the
Treaty of Joinville with King Philip II of Spain (alluded to in [TMAP Sc XVI]).
4.5.16 The Eighth War: September 1585 - April 1598 [TMAP Sc VXII-XIX]
The Treaty of Joinville provided funds for the Catholic League to begin raising troops. As well
as their avowed opposition to a Huguenot heir, they also resented the favour given to Epernon
and Joyeuse. Henry III and his mother, without the means to stand up to the Guises, were
forced to sign the Treaty of Nemours, which ceded more funds and security towns to the
Catholic League, and required the King to ban Protestant worship and exclude Navarre from
the succession. Henry III had effectively lost control of his country.
Navarre and Condé, at a significant numeric disadvantage, had to pick and choose their battles
carefully. But at Coutras in October 1587, the Huguenots struck a crushing victory against a
Royal army led by the Duke of Joyeuse [TMAP Sc XVII, XVIII], who was captured. The King’s
favourite had committed a massacre of 800 Huguenots at Poitou four months earlier, and was
now murdered in revenge. The Duke of Guise gained victories against German and Swiss
armies, but was enraged when Joyeuse’s titles were passed instead to Epernon. Tension
mounted between the League and Henry III [TMAP Sc XVII, XIX]. The king tried to establish
military control of the capital in May 1588, but Paris was a Guise stronghold and the inhabitants
took to the streets (‘The Day of the Barricades’) to defend Guise and their city. Henry III fled to
Chartres, and the revolutionary Catholic Committee of Sixteen took control of the city. Under
further pressure from his mother, the king signed the Edict of Union in July 1588, dismissing
Epernon, appointing Guise as Lieutenant-General of France, and recognising the Cardinal de
Bourbon as heir to the throne.
4.5.17 The Murder of the Duke of Guise: 23 December 1588 [TMAP Sc XXI]
Henry III was humiliated, and summoned a meeting of the elected Estates-General at Blois in
September in an attempt to garner support against Guise. But the majority of the deputies
191
[L’Estoile-Journal]
(v1.3) Page 51 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
supported the Catholic League, and the king was left somewhat powerless. Desperate, the king
invited the Duke and Cardinal of Guise to a council meeting at Blois just before Christmas. The
Duke was told the King wished to have a private meeting in a room adjoining the royal
bedroom, but was there murdered by members of the king’s guard (the “forty-five”) [TMAP Sc
XXI]. The Cardinal of Guise was murdered the following day [TMAP Sc XXII], and the Duke’s
son [TMAP Sc XXI] and Cardinal de Bourbon were imprisoned.
4.5.18 The Death of Catherine: 05 January 1589
Catherine de Medici had been unaware of the plan to murder Guise, and was greatly
displeased and upset at her son’s actions. Within two weeks, the sixty-nine year old mother of
three French kings was also dead, probably of pleurisy. She had out-lived all but two of her
children: Henry, and her daughter Margaret who was still officially married to Navarre. Marlowe
has Catherine anticipate her own death at the end of [TMAP Sc XXI]: “But sorrow seize upon
my toiling soul, / For since the Guise is dead, I will not live.”
4.5.19 The Assassination of Henry III: 01 August 1589 [TMAP Sc XXIV]
Following the death of his mother, Henry III found himself having to face up to his powerful
Catholic enemies alone. His murder of Guise had only served to increase his unpopularity
amongst the Catholic population nationwide (recorded in the wave of polemic pamphlets and
vitriolic denouncements from the pulpits), and the third Guise brother, the Duke of Mayenne,
quickly took up the reins. The king was left with little choice but to ally with Navarre, and the
pair signed an accord in April before jointly advancing on Paris.
The two Henries were camped at Saint Cloud just west of the capital by the beginning of
August. On the first day of that month, a Jacobin monk called Jacques Clément claimed to
have documents for delivery to the king. Presenting false papers, he was allowed in to make
his presentation to the king, whereupon he stabbed Henry in the stomach [TMAP Sc XXIV].
Clément was immediately killed, and at first it appeared that the king was only wounded. The
king implored his followers to support Navarre in the event of his death, and officially
recognised the Huguenot as his heir, as well as urging him to become a Catholic. The following
day, 02 August, the king died from his wounds, and Navarre nominally became King Henry IV
of France.
This is the point at which Marlowe’s play ends.
4.5.20 The Battle for the Crown: 1589-1594
The Catholics did not recognise the Protestant Navarre as monarch of course, acclaiming the
still imprisoned Cardinal de Bourbon as ‘Charles X’, although he would die in May 1590.
Despite his death-bed pleas, many of the late king’s followers, including Epernon and Nevers,
could not support a Huguenot king, and deserted. The battle lines were once again being
drawn, and Navarre led his army north to Normandy in search of English support, and set up
his base in the fortified coastal port of Dieppe.
With some support from Elizabeth, but still very much against the odds, Henry IV won two
famous victories against Mayenne, first at Arques just outside Dieppe in September 1589, and
then in March 1590 at Ivry, west of Paris. Henry now blockaded the Catholic stronghold of
Paris, where between 7 May and 30 August the residents suffered greatly, 30,000 of them
dying before partially being relieved by the Spanish Duke of Parma, who had marched from the
Netherlands on the orders of Philip II.
Henry IV had not had enough resources to force home the advantages gained on the
battlefield, and now set about raising more troops. With funds acquired from the capture of
(v1.3) Page 52 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Chartres and Noyon, he recruited an army of German troops, and on 21 July 1591 Elizabeth
granted the Earl of Essex command of a small English force which headed for Dieppe on the
agreement that Henry IV would attack Rouen. These combined forces finally laid siege to
Rouen in November, but the Catholic population held firm, and a disheartened Essex returned
to England in January. Parma’s army once again came to the rescue, and he and Mayenne
liberated Rouen in April 1592. The skirmishes continued, but it seemed neither side was able to
gain a decisive advantage. In particular, Henry IV was unable to raise the force necessary to
take Paris, without which he could not claim to rule France, despite the death in December of
Parma.
Thirty years of war was beginning to take its toll on the French population, with disease and a
series of poor harvests adding to the hardships and provoking peasant rebellions in some
places. The Catholics did not really have a plausible candidate for the throne since the death of
the Cardinal de Boubon, but the over-riding obstacle to peace remained the king’s Protestant
faith. Henry IV had tried to offer an olive branch with the Edict of Nantes in July 1591, which
stated his willingness to undergo Catholic instruction once the war was over, whilst at the same
time revoking the Edict of Union. In January 1593, the Catholic Estates-General narrowly
passed a vote to invite Henry IV to talks and a brief truce was agreed. By May, talks had
progressed to the stage where an announcement was made that Henry IV had decided to
become a Catholic, and the king himself is alleged to have declared that “Paris vaut bien une
messe” (“Paris is worth a mass”)192.
Some of the extreme Catholic elements still resisted under Mayenne, especially in Paris, but
there was enough popular support to enable Henry to be crowned at Chartres on 27 February
1594 (Rheims was still held by the Catholic League). In March, the king was finally able to enter
Paris without resistance, and the last remaining extremist pockets were banished. In 1595, a
clever political declaration of war on the Spanish played the patriotic card with all Frenchmen,
but the fighting against Mayenne and a supporting Spanish force went on for some years. It
was not until September 1597 that Henry IV was able to strike a decisive victory be re-capturing
the border town of Amiens. In April 1598, the Huguenots finally accepted the Edict of Nantes
which granted them a certain level of freedom of worship, and the following month the Treaty of
Vervins signalled peace with Spain. The War of Religion was effectively over.
Henry IV would prove to be a good monarch, who strove to improve the lives of all his subjects
regardless of religion, and who provided a much needed antidote to the extravagant excesses
of the latter Valois dynasty. Together with his loyal minister Maximilien de Béthune, Duke of
Sully, great practical improvements were made to national finance, agriculture and education.
The first Bourbon became known as “Henry the Great”, although tragically not everyone moved
on. Henry IV was assassinated on 14 May 1610 by a Catholic fanatic, François Ravaillic, who
stabbed the much loved king in his coach as it waited in traffic.
192
A great pity that Marlowe’s play was already written, for this final twist of great irony would surely have appealed to the dramatist.
(v1.3) Page 53 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
5.
PLOT OVERVIEW
5.1
Dramatis Personae
5.1.1
List of Characters
The Marlowe Society
The House of Valois (see section 5.1.2)
• Catherine de Medici, Queen-Mother of France
• Charles IX, King of France
• Duke of Anjou, Later Henry III, King of France
• Margaret of Valois, Queen of Navarre
The Catholic Nobles (see section 5.1.3)
• Gonzago - Louis de Gonzague, Duke of Nevers
• Retes - Albert de Gondi, Duke of Retz
• Mountsorrell - Charles de Chambes, Count of Montsoreau
The House of Guise (see section 5.1.4)
• Henry I, Third Duke of Guise
• Duchess of Guise - Catherine of Cleves
• Duke Dumaine - Charles, Duke of Mayenne
• Cardinal “of Lorraine” - Louis II, actually Cardinal of Guise
• Guise’s Son - Charles, 4th Duke of Guise
The Huguenot Leadership and the House of Bourbon (see section 5.1.5)
• Joan III, the “Old Queen” of Navarre
• Henry of Navarre, later Henry IV of France
• Gaspard de Coligny, Lord High Admiral of France
• Prince of Condy - Henry de Bourbon-Condé
• Pleshé - Phillipe du Plessis-Mornay
• Bartus - Guillaume de Salluste Du Bartas
The Victims of the Massacre (see section 5.1.6)
• Loreine
• Seroune
• Petrus Ramus
• Taleus - Omer Talon, aka Audomarus Talaeus
• Two Schoolmasters
Henry III’s Mignons (see section 5.1.7)
• Epernoun - Jean Louis de Nogaret de La Valette, Duc d’Épernon
• Mugeroun - Louis de Maugiron, Baron of Ampus
• Joyeux - Anne de Joyeuse, Duc de Joyeuse
Other Minor Characters (see section 5.1.8)
• Apothecary
• Soldier who Shoots Coligny
• Cossin - Captain of the King’s (Charles IX) Guard
• Seroune’s Wife
• Two Lords of Poland
• Two Parisian Catholics
• Cutpurse
• Duchess of Guise’s Maid
• Soldier who Shoots Mugeroun
(v1.3) Page 54 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.1.2
The Marlowe Society
Captain of the King’s (Henry III) Guard
Three Murderers
The Friar
Surgeon
An English Agent
Messengers
Attendants
Soldiers
The House of Valois
The House of Valois took its name from Philip VI, Count of Valois, who reigned from 1328 until
his death in 1350. Valois Kings reigned in France until Henry III died without heir in 1589.
Catherine de Medici, Queen-Mother of France
(b. 13 April 1519; d. 05 January 1589):
In Marlowe’s play, Catherine is very much the villainess of the
piece, intent on maintaining her position as effective ruler of
France through her sons, the successive Valois Kings, or via
any other means available to her. Marlowe shows her to have
a quite ruthless attitude to those sons, quite willing to consider
a ‘switch’ to the next in line when the current king hints at a
policy that might undermine her power (see Scenes XI and
XIV). Perhaps a little less accurately as far as history is
concerned, Marlowe also portrays her as equally motivated by
religious zeal, keen to remove the Huguenot presence in
France and see “the Catholic faith of Rome flourish in France”
(XIV.51-52). In the very first scene we find her plotting to
“dissolve in blood” the marriage of her daughter and Navarre,
and Marlowe has her actively complicit in the general massacre (Scene IV). To all these
ends she is a close ally of the Guise in the play, and distraught at his murder (Scene XXI).
In reality, Catherine was a more complex character. Born in Florence, her marriage to
Henry, Duke of Orleans was arranged by Pope Clement VII when she was just 14. Her
husband became King of France in 1547 on the death of his father, Francis I, but any
participation in state affairs was denied her and instead bestowed upon his mistress, Diane
de Poitiers. Even when her husband died in 1559, her succeeding eldest son’s marriage to
Mary Queen of Scots transferred effective power to the young Queen’s uncle, Francis, 2nd
Duke of Guise. When the weak Francis II died little more than a year later, she moved
quickly to secure control of the nine year old Charles IX, and worked hard to maintain
effective power behind his erratic successor, Henri III. Although a Catholic, she was by
instinct a moderate, and attempted to mediate a compromise between the religious factions
during much of the 1560’s with Michel de l'Hôpital as her Chancellor, her concessions to
the Huguenots only partly driven as a counterpoise to Guisian ambitions.
Her efforts to arrange matches for her children were driven by political rather than religious
motives; her eldest daughter was married to Philip II of Spain, but she arranged the match
of Margaret to Navarre, and matches were attempted for both her younger sons with the
protestant Elizabeth of England. She baulked at religious intolerance by either extreme,
and that aspect of Admiral Coligny, together with his increasing influence over her son
Charles IX and a desire to provoke war with Spain, seems certain to have driven her to
collude in, or at least approve, his assassination. The extent of her active role in planning
the wide-scale massacre that followed is less clear, although the evidence suggests she
had some involvement in at least planning a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of a
Huguenot response to Coligny’s murder. She readopted a policy of compromise and
(v1.3) Page 55 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
tolerance towards the Huguenots under Henry III, but her power waned as her increasingly
desperate son acted without consulting her, culminating in the murder of Guise in
December 1588. Within a fortnight, Catherine herself died, most probably from pleurisy.
Charles IX, King of France 1560-74
(b. 27 June 1550; d. 30 May 1574):
Charles succeeded to the French throne aged just ten on the
death of his eldest brother, Francis II, in December 1560.
Catherine de Medici acted as regent initially, and maintained
control over her son and thus the government of France even
when Charles officially came of age in 1563. Charles married
Elizabeth of Austria in 1570, and the royal couple bore one
daughter who died in childhood, although the king did also
father an illegitimate son in 1573. The young King showed little
interest in statecraft until he came under the spell of Admiral
Coligny, whereupon he displayed a latent rebellious streak
against his mother’s dominance by backing the Huguenot
leader’s plans to fight the Spanish in the Netherlands. This threat to Catherine’s power and
the peace of France inspired the Admiral’s assassination, and the Guise-instigated St.
Bartholomew’s Day Massacre which followed. Whilst promising revenge against those who
had attacked his friend Coligny, there is clear evidence that Charles issued orders as part
of the plan to assassinate the Huguenot leaders on the morning of 24 August 1572,
confirmed by his statement two days later to the Parlement of Paris that “everything that
had occurred was done by his expressed commandment”.193 Guilt at his part in the
Massacre saw Charles’ weak physical and mental state deteriorate over the next two
years, and following tuberculosis-type symptoms, he died aged just 24.
Marlowe paints a picture of a young and weak king under his mother’s influence, although
does depict him objecting to the proposed massacre (Scene IV), albeit quickly yielding to
pressure from Guise, Anjou and his mother. Charles visits the wounded Coligny to offer
protection and justice as per his source material, but since Marlowe has just portrayed the
King agreeing reluctantly to the proposed Massacre of the Huguenot leadership, we can
only interpret this hypocrisy as further weakness in the character of Charles.
Anjou, later Henry III, King of France 1574-89
(b. 19 September 1551; d. 02 August 1589):
In many ways, the Duke of Anjou, who succeeded his brother
Charles to the French throne in 1574, is the most interesting
character with which Marlowe had to work. Whilst Navarre
and Guise provide the unambiguous religious extremes,
Anjou slides from one side to the other during the course of
the play. He was his mother’s favourite, and is reported to
have declared himself “un petit Huguenot” in an act of
youthful rebellion at the age of nine. Catherine soon stamped
that out, and by the age of 17 he was leading the royalist
forces in significant Catholic victories against the Huguenots
in the battles of Jarnac and Moncontour.194 His involvement in
the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre is recorded at least to the extent of his presence at
the council meetings and the murder of Coligny. Marlowe implicates him further, casting
him as an active participant in the massacre: when Guise is rousing his charges
beforehand, Anjou’s cunning statement that he is “disguis’d and none knows who I am, /
193
Recorded by a ‘parlementaire’ in the court - Lettres Historiques pour les Années 1556-1594, Ed. Dorothy Thickett (Geneva, 1966),
p.207, and cited in [Holt] p.89.
194
See section 4.5.3 for a summary of the Third War.
(v1.3) Page 56 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
And therefore mean to murder all I meet” (V.5-6) paints him in a very Machiavellian light.
Marlowe has him as an accomplice in the murders of the preacher Loreine (Scene VII) and
Huguenot tutors (Scene IX), and the actual murderer of Ramus (earlier in Scene IX). Anjou
continued his military role over the next year, and was leading the Siege of the Huguenot
stronghold La Rochelle when he was offered and accepted the Polish Crown in 1573.
The first decade of Henry III’s French reign saw far less large-scale fighting in the Wars of
Religion. There was a backlash after St Bartholomew’s Day and the rise of the Malcontents
contributed to the Edict of Beaulieu granting Huguenot freedom of worship, which in turn
triggered the formation of the Catholic League, cementing Guise’s links with the Pope and
Spain. Henry seems to have had less interest in waging war as king. Instead he
concentrated on the pleasures of court life, and his unpopular mignons. Here was ripe
subject matter for Marlowe, presenting a similar situation to that with Edward II and Piers
Gaveston.195 The play shows the influence of Joyeux, Mugeroun and Epernoun over the
King as the monarch’s relationship with Guise deteriorates. In reality, Henry’s position was
also greatly weakened by the death of his only younger brother in 1584. Despite marrying
Louise of Lorraine in 1575, the royal couple remained childless, which meant that Henry of
Navarre then became heir presumptive, a situation that provoked the Catholic League to
begin raising troops. Unable to finance his own army, Henry was forced into signing the
humiliating Treaty of Nemours, and when Guise entered Paris in May 1988, the King fled to
Blois. Marlowe simplifies all this into Scene XIX in which the King and Epernoun challenge
Guise over his alleged raising of troops. They see through the his dissembling, leading
Epernoun to suggest the desperate measure of assassinating Guise. Henry’s change of
sides is subsequently completed by his pact with Henry of Navarre.
A failure to produce children, his close relationship with the effeminate mignons, and a
dislike of waging war during his reign have all contributed to the view that Henry was
homosexual, or at least bi-sexual. There are plenty of contemporary references to his
alleged homosexuality, although it was his political opponents who tended to promote this
image. Against this view are well documented affairs with various women, including an
infatuation with the married Marie de Clèves prior to his marriage. The royal couple’s failure
to produce children may have been caused by a possible miscarriage in 1576, but there is
anyway evidence of concerted attempts at conception thereafter, including regular
pilgrimages to Chartres to pray for a son and heir. Whatever his sexual orientation, Henry
was not to be tempted by his mother’s attempt at a match for him with Elizabeth I in 1570.
The differences in age and religion would certainly have been a deterrent, but did not justify
his less than diplomatic references to the English Queen as a “putain publique” (a ‘public
whore’), and of being an ‘old creature with a sore leg’. Such concerns did not however
deter his younger brother Francis, Elizabeth’s “frog” who came as close as anyone to
marrying the woman 22 years his senior during an active courtship in person during 1579.
195
[Briggs] - p.264 suggests the Catholic League pamphlet [Boucher-Gaverston] as a possible source for Marlowe, at least in
suggesting the idea as it draws “striking parallels” between the situation of Edward II and Gaveston, and Henry III and his mignons.
(v1.3) Page 57 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Margaret of Valois, Queen of Navarre; later Queen of
France (b. 14 May 1553; d. 27 March 1615):
Margaret was the younger sister of both Charles IX and
Henry III, the third daughter and sixth child of Henry II and
Catherine de Medici. In Marlowe’s play, she has the smallest
of speaking parts, appearing in just two scenes (I and III) with
just five lines in the extant text. Her life story, however, would
have made a highly entertaining play in its own right. Her
match to Henry of Navarre was arranged by her mother, very
much against her wishes196, for she was said to have been in
love with Henry, Duke of Guise. But during the Massacre that
followed, she is supposed to have saved a number of
prominent Huguenot’s lives by hiding them in her rooms.
When she finally rejoined her husband in Navarre they had a
tempestuous relationship and both took lovers. Back in Paris in 1582, her behaviour so
scandalised her brother Henry III, that he forced her to leave court. After a bizarre attempt
to seize power in the city of Agen, her brother lost patience and imprisoned her in the
Castle of Usson. There she remained for 18 years, writing her memoirs about her husband
and the French court which scandalised the public when published posthumously in 1628.
Her marriage was finally dissolved in 1599, by which time her husband, now Henry IV of
France, had borne four children by his mistress Gabrielle d’Estrées. On her release, she
was reconciled with her ex-husband and his new wife Marie de Medici, and lived out her
days as a patron of the arts. Her marriage to Navarre is the subject of Alexandre Dumas’
La Reine Margot, and Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost of course stars Ferdinand, King
of Navarre and an unnamed Princess of France.
5.1.3
The Catholic Nobles
Catherine de Medici established a council of close advisors that played a key role in decisions
made just prior to the Massacre. Given her own heritage, it is perhaps not surprising that the
council comprised a number of nobles of Italian origin; all were staunchly Catholic and were
given a large share of the blame for the Massacre. Three appear in minor roles during the
Massacre scenes: Gonzago, Retes and Mountsorrell.
“Gonzago” - Louis de Gonzague, Duke of Nevers
(b. 18 September 1539; d. 23 October 1595):
Louis de Gonzague was born as the third son of the Duke
of Mantua in Italy, but was sent to the French court aged
10, and became a French citizen in 1560 when he was a
close aide to Francis II. He married Henrietta of Clèves in
1565, thus acquiring the title Duke of Nevers. He would
thus become brother-in-law to the Catholic Duke of Guise
and the Huguenot Prince of Condé, both of whom married
a younger sister of Henrietta. A staunch Catholic, he fought
in the Wars of Religion acting as a mentor to Anjou, and
was one of the main advocates for eliminating the
Huguenot leadership. Generally considered one of the
main protagonists behind the St. Bartholomew’s Day
Massacre, he however supported saving Navarre, and also
196
“When the prelate asked Marguerite whether she would take Henry of Navarre to be her husband, she did not reply. [Her brother,
King] Charles put her hand on Marguerite’s head and forcibly pushed it down, and this was taken as a sign of assent.” [England] - p.59.
(v1.3) Page 58 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
allegedly stood personal surety for his brother-in-law Condé. He later accompanied Anjou
at the siege of La Rochelle and to Poland, but their relationship deteriorated once the latter
acceded to the French throne as Henry III, not least because of the favouritism shown to
the mignons. He remained a royalist, did not join the Catholic League, and was reticent
about joining the Day of the Barricades. He would not join Henry III in his pact with
Navarre, however, and refused to support Henry IV for a long time, until he was appointed
Special Ambassador to the Pope to negotiate a religious reconciliation for the new king.
Marlowe thus accurately portrays ‘Gonzago’ as active during the Massacre, and has him
involved in the murders of Coligny (Scene V), Ramus, and the tutors of Navarre and Condé
(both Scene IX).
“Retes” - Albert de Gondi, Duke of Retz
(b. 04 November 1522; d. 1602):
Born in Florence, his father became a banker in Lyon and
the son joined the court of Henry II. Gondi fought with
distinction in the Italian Wars, and went on to lead Catholic
forces in the battles of Saint-Denis, Jarnac and
Montcontour during the Wars of Religion. With Nevers and
others, he was also present at the critical council meeting
on the eve of the Massacre. Some months later he was
tasked with a diplomatic mission to England where he
successfully deterred Elizabeth I from providing aid to the
Huguenots. He fought in the siege of La Rochelle as well
as accompanying Anjou to Poland, and continued as a
military leader after Henry III acceded to the French throne.
He became Duc de Retz in 1581. In the play, he and Nevers appear together in all the
same Massacre scenes as active protagonists in the murders of Coligny (Scene V),
Ramus, and the tutors of Navarre and Condé (both Scene IX).
“Mountsorrell” - Charles de Chambes, Count of Montsoreau?
(b. 28 November 1549; d. 1621):
The character of ‘Mountsorrell’ also appears throughout the Massacre scenes in Marlowe’s
play. He is present at the murder of Coligny, and indeed Guise subsequently instructs him
to “go shoot the ordinance off, ... then toll the bell” (V.53,55) that signals the start of the
massacre. Later Mountsorrell is also present at the murder of Ramus and the tutors, but his
main contribution to the play is his lone murder of a Huguenot character called ‘Seroune’ in
Scene VIII. Marlowe without doubt has directly used as his source the passage in
[Varamund] describing one “Montsorel” travelling to Angiers to murder a pastor called
Masson de Rivers in his home (see footnote 226 in section 5.3.3.6). The most likely
identification for ‘Montsorel’ would appear to be Charles de Chambes, Count of
Montsoreau197. Montsoreau served Anjou, and fought on the Catholic side in the wars of
Religion, most notably at the siege of La Rochelle in 1573. However, he is most famous for
the murder in 1579 of Bussy d’Amboise, who had boasted in a letter of an assignation with
his wife. Montsoreau plotted with his wife to arrange a meeting with d’Amboise at which
Montsoreau had him killed (an event that features in Chapman’s play Bussy D’Amboise
(1604?) and Dumas’ Le Dame de Montsoreau (1846)). Montsoreau continued his military
career, and was wounded and taken prisoner at the battle of Coutras in 1587, but survived
to enjoy a long life, even out-living his wife by a year.
197
See for example [Oliver] - p.114.
(v1.3) Page 59 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
5.1.4
The Marlowe Society
The House of Guise
The House of Guise was a cadet branch of the House of Lorraine, founded by Claude of
Lorraine (1496-1550) who became first Duke of Guise in 1528. His son Francis (1519 -1563)
inherited the title, and led the re-capture of Calais from the English in 1558. The second Duke’s
assassination outside Orléans in 1563 was always believed by the Catholics to have been
orchestrated by Admiral Coligny, establishing a grudge that was revenged in 1572 by his son
Henry with the murder that initiated the St Bartholomew’s Day massacre.
Henry I, 3rd Duke of Guise
(b. 31 January 1550; d. 23 December 1588):
The Duke of Guise is very much the Machiavellian villain
of Marlowe’s piece, the ambitious leader of the Catholic
faction who is aiming for nothing less than the throne of
France. There is certainly a strong basis for this
characterisation in reality, but Marlowe has still
exaggerated his crimes. He was born in 1550, the first
child of Francis, 2nd Duke of Guise, and Anna d’Este.
Francis and his younger brother Charles, Cardinal of
Lorraine, held effective power in the French ruling council
during the brief reign of Francis II, who was married to
their niece Mary, Queen of Scots. In the subsequent reign,
Francis became military leader of the Catholic forces in the early stages of the religious
wars. But leading the siege of Orleans in 1563, he was shot by a Huguenot assassin, Jean
de Poltrot, and died six days later. Henry succeeded him as 3rd Duke of Guise at the age of
13, and his father’s murder would be a significant driving force, leading ultimately to the
shooting of Admiral Coligny (who was widely believed by Guise and the Catholics to have
organised the Poltrot shooting) and the subsequent Massacre. Henry became ever more
popular with the Catholic majority in France, especially in Paris, and in 1576 formed the
Catholic League with the Pope and King of Spain in an attempt to step up pressure on the
Huguenots. The death of Henry III’s younger brother in 1584 left Henry of Navarre as heir
to the French throne, inciting Guise to sign the Treaty of Joinville with Philip II, which
declared the Cardinal de Bourbon as heir. Guise now dominated Henry III, whose empty
royal treasury did not allow him to raise an effective military force of his own. The king
desperately tried to reign in Guise’s power, ordering him to stop a military advance, but
Guise defied him and further challenged the royal authority by organising the Day of the
Barricades in Paris in May 1588. Henry III fled to Blois, and achieved desperate revenge
with the murder of the Duke of Guise there in December.
Although Guise retains the only substantial soliloquy (II.31-105), the Folger Leaf (if
genuine) demonstrates that his lines have still been significantly abridged in this extant
version of the play. That speech establishes him as the ambitious Machiavellian
character198, who “like[s] ... best that [which] flies beyond my reach,” and who is aiming for
nothing less than the “diadem of France”, even hinting that he is exploiting religion as an
expedient means of achieving that end (II.61-5). At this point we have already seen him
instigate the murders of the Queen of Navarre and Coligny, the former crime at least of
which he was innocent in reality. Marlowe also has him personally responsible for many of
the murders dramatised during the Massacre (Loreine in Scene VII, the Huguenot
schoolmasters in Scene IX, and the Huguenots hiding in the wood in Scene XII), not to
mention Mugeroun, who has cuckolded him (Scene XIX). Whilst Marlowe specialised in this
type of aspiring Machiavellian lead character, it is difficult to conclude that Marlowe is
sympathetic with him, or that the Guise is in any way a hero of the play. His crimes are
heinous, and on the surface at least the anti-catholic message delivered by the dying Henry
198
Indeed Marlowe explicitly refers to Guise as the “Machiavel” in the prologue to The Jew of Malta.
(v1.3) Page 60 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
III to the agent at the climax of the play seems to highlight Marlowe’s intention to appeal to
an English protestant audience, and by inference paint Guise as the villain of the piece.
Duchess of Guise - Catherine of Cleves
(b. 1548; d. 11 May 1633):
The Duke of Guise’s wife appears in just a single scene
(XIV) in Marlowe’s play, writing a letter to her lover
Mugeroun, one of the King’s mignons. The Duke bursts in,
grabs the letter and angrily lambasts her infidelity in
colourful language, before vowing to take bloody revenge
on the man who has cuckolded him. This sub-plot is based
on a real-life affair, albeit with a different man - a nobleman
named Saint-Mégrin, who was allegedly killed by the Duke
of Guise’s brothers in 1581 for his offence. Catherine
remained a bitter enemy of Henry III after the murder of her
husband, and the king further taunted the dowager
Duchess by referring to her as "la maîtresse de Saint
Megrin". She made her peace with Henry IV once he had converted to Catholicism, and
obtained a high position in the retinue of the queen, Marie de Medici, continuing to live at
the centre of court life until she died at the age of 85.
Duke Dumaine (Charles, Duke of Mayenne)
(b. 26 March 1554; d. 03 October 1611):
The Duke Dumaine (‘du Maine’ i.e. of Mayenne) was the
younger brother of Henry, Duke of Guise, and only really
came to the fore as leader of the Catholic League after his
two brothers had been killed by Henry III in 1588. He was
not in France at the time of the Massacre of Paris, although
Marlowe has him present at the council meeting (Scene
IV), the initiation of the massacre (Scene V), and at the
murder of Ramus (Scene IX). During the 1570’s and 1580’s
he was an active military leader in the Wars of Religion. He
was in Lyon when his brothers were murdered, although
Marlowe has Henry III order his murder in Orleans (Scene
XXI), an attempt he forestalls in the play, before the
Jacobin friar approaches him with his plot to assassinate the king. Having assumed
command of the Catholic League, and despite losing key battles at Arques and Ivry, he
maintained the resistance of the Catholic stronghold that was Paris. He was wary of
handing too much power to his Spanish allies, and also of the more extreme Catholic
elements. In the end, it was he who negotiated with Henry of Navarre, persuading him to
convert to Catholicism, rather than place the Spanish Infanta on the French throne.
(v1.3) Page 61 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Cardinal “of Lorraine” (Louis II, Cardinal of Guise)
(b. 06 July 1555; d. 24 December 1588):
The Cardinal appears in two scenes as the confidant of
Catherine de Medici, perhaps providing a dramatic vehicle
by which the Queen Mother can share her plans with the
audience. Catherine addresses the Cardinal as “My Lord
of Lorraine” (Sc. XI) and “My Lord Cardinal of Lorraine”
(Sc. XIV), and here perhaps Marlowe is confusing him
historically with his uncle Charles, who was indeed
Cardinal of Lorraine (and brother to Francis, 2nd Duke of
Guise). The character in Marlowe’s play is younger
brother to both the Dukes of Guise (he refers to himself as
such at XIV.54) and Mayenne. He was created Cardinal in
1578 and took the title of Cardinal of Guise. He was
dedicated to his brother’s cause, and was murdered by
Henry III at Blois in 1588 (Sc. XXII), the day after Guise was slain, events accurately
dramatised in Marlowe’s play.
Guise’s Son - Charles, 4th Duke of Guise
(b. 02 August 1571; d. 30 September 1640):
Charles was the eldest son of the Duke of Guise, and
inherited the title in December 1588 at the age of 17 when
his father was murdered by Henry III at Blois. The King
has the boy brought to see his father’s dead body (Scene
XXI) as a warning as to what will happen if he too should
“prove such a traitor” (XXI.120), before imprisoning him.
Although Marlowe’s character predictably vows “I’ll be
revenged,” this was not how it turned out in reality.
Charles eventually escaped from Tours prison after three
years incarceration, but to the dismay of the Catholic
League, he declared his support for Henry IV in return for
a large sum of money. He spent the last decade of his life
exiled in Italy after falling foul of Cardinal Richelieu in 1631.
5.1.5
The Huguenot Leaders and the House of Bourbon
The House of Bourbon (a province in the centre of France) was established in the 13th Century,
when Louis de Bourbon was made first Duke of Bourbon in 1327. Although that line died out in
1527, the junior line of La Marche-Vendôme remained via the Dukedom of Vendôme. Antoine
de Bourbon, Duke of Vendôme, was ‘First Prince of the Blood’ through his descent from Louis
IX (1214-1270). Antoine de Bourbon married Joan, next in line to the throne of Navarre. By this
marriage, their eldest son Henry would eventually inherit both the thrones of Navarre and
France. The French inheritance was not without dispute, and when the Valois line ran out with
the death of Henry III in 1589, the Catholic League moved to have Charles, Cardinal de
Bourbon, established as the rightful claimant to the French crown, he being the Catholic
younger brother of Antoine de Bourbon. Louis de Bourbon, Prince of Condé, was the youngest
brother of both these, and converted to Protestantism before becoming leader of the
Huguenots in the wars of religion until his death at the battle of Jarnac in 1569. His eldest son
was Henry, who inherited the title Prince of Condé, and is the Condé who appears in Marlowe’s
play.
(v1.3) Page 62 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Joan III, the “Old Queen” of Navarre
(b. 16 November 1528; d. 09 June 1572):
The “Old Queene” of Navarre (as her speeches are
labelled in the printed Octavo version, although she was
only 43 years old at the time of her death) is murdered in
Scene III by the poisoned gloves organised by Guise.
Although not listed explicitly as a guest in the preceding
wedding scene by Marlowe, she in fact died in reality two
and half months before her son married Margaret at
Notre Dame. Although rumours of such a poisoning were
spread at the time, an autopsy conducted after her death
contradicts these claims. Joan was raised in the
Protestant reformed religion, and although her son
Henry was baptised a Catholic, he too was raised in the
Huguenot religion by his mother, who declared Calvinism the official religion of Navarre in
1560. She married Antoine de Bourbon in 1547, who was ‘First Prince of the Blood’, a
position that their eldest son Henry would inherit. Antoine was a weak character, a
philanderer who switched religions a number of times, and who died in 1562 fighting for the
Catholics at the Siege of Rouen, after which Joan reigned as sole regnant of Navarre.
Henry of Navarre, later Henry IV of France 1589-1610
(b. 13 December 1553; d. 14 May 1610):
Henry, King of Navarre (his title for the majority of the
period covered by Marlowe’s play) lived a life packed with
enough incident to inspire many dramas. Inheriting the
crown of Navarre on the death of his mother just prior to
his marriage to Margaret of Valois, he managed to
survive the Massacre of Paris. Despite being confined to
the French court, he eventually made his escape back to
Navarre in 1576. He was a renowned womaniser
throughout his life, with a string of mistresses on the go
at all times, and his marriages to Margaret and later
Marie de Medici were predictably tempestuous. He allied
with Henry III after the murder of Guise, and led his
armies against the Catholic League after the former’s
own assassination and Navarre’s consequent nominal
accession to the throne. Despite famous victories in the
battles of Arques and Ivry, he did not have the military strength to take Paris, but eventually
negotiated a settlement with the Catholic leader, the Duke of Mayenne, which involved him
converting to Catholicism, famously declaring that “Paris is worth a mass”. His reign was
generally very successful, and he managed to restore peace and stability after the
devastating Wars of Religion, whilst simultaneously improving the financial well-being of
the nation, most notably improving agriculture and the national infrastructure. He was a big
patron of the arts, and was also responsible for building projects such as the Pont Neuf and
the Grande Galerie at the Louvre. But some retained long memories, and Henry was
stabbed to death in 1610 by a Catholic fanatic François Ravaillac whilst his coach was
stuck in a traffic jam.
The success of his reign earned him the nicknames ‘Henri le Grand’ and ‘Le Bon Roi
Henri’, but all this came of course after the play had been written (and even Marlowe might
have baulked at dramatising the fantastic irony of Henry converting to Catholicism after all
that had gone before). The extant text may well have lost some of the complexity of
Marlowe’s original characterisation, but we are left with a fairly one-dimensional Protestant
Champion whose main trait is a belief that God is on his, the righteous, side (I.41-43;
XIII.40-41, XVI.11, XVIII.12-13, XX,26-7). At least he is consistent in crediting God for his
(v1.3) Page 63 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
military victory over Joyeux (XVIII.3-4). There might also be some interpretation of
cowardice in some of Navarre’s actions: his wish to die when his mother is poisoned (III.2324), and particularly him and Condé leaving the school-masters to their grisly death at the
hands of Guise (IX.77-78). So despite Navarre being the obvious hero to present to an
English audience, there is, as ever with Marlowe, enough ambiguity to leave us uncertain
as to the author’s sympathies, despite any view being blurred through the haze of the
reported text.
Gaspard de Coligny, Lord High Admiral of France
(b. 16 February 1519; d. 24 August 1572):
Born into the Burgundian House of Châtillon, Coligny
came to court at the beginning of the 1540’s, before
embarking on a successful military career fighting in the
Italian wars, and was made Admiral in 1552. He became
a Protestant in the 1550’s, corresponded with John
Calvin, and was very active in trying to establish
Huguenot colonies abroad. He was vocal in calling for
religious tolerance, but his former friendship with
Francis, Duke of Guise (father of the play’s Guise) broke
down in 1560 as the Wars of Religion erupted. He
reluctantly took arms, but joined Louis de Bourbon,
Prince of Condé, at the head of the Huguenot forces.
The Duke of Guise was assassinated during the Siege of Orléans in February 1563 by a
Huguenot assassin, Jean de Poltrot de Méré, and whatever the truth, Coligny was blamed
by the Catholic faction as being behind the attack. After Condé’s death in 1569, Coligny
took over sole leadership of the Huguenot forces, and negotiated the Peace of SaintGermain in 1570. He returned to court the following year, and quickly gained the favour of
the young King, Charles IX. He exploited this influence to push for armed intervention in the
Spanish Netherlands, a move that alarmed Catherine de Medici. The attempted shooting of
Coligny on 22 August, four days after Navarre’s wedding, was probably orchestrated by
Guise in retaliation for his father’s death, and the fear of Huguenot retaliation was used by
the Catholic and Royal factions to justify the subsequent Massacre of Paris that began with
Coligny’s murder. Marlowe sticks pretty closely to the facts of these attacks on the Admiral
as presented by his source material, and there is even some sense left in the extant text of
the dignity shown by the Admiral in the face of his attackers.
“Prince of Condy” - Henry de Bourbon-Condé
(b. 29 December 1552; d. 05 March 1588):
Henry de Bourbon-Condé was the eldest son of Louis de
Bourbon, Prince of Condé, Huguenot leader until his death
at the Battle of Jarnac in 1569 (when his son was 16),
whereupon Admiral Coligny took over the leadership. Henry
(now Prince of Condé) was caught up in the Massacre
alongside his first cousin Navarre; both survived, but were
forced to convert to Catholicism. Condé finally escaped Paris
in 1574, and raised an army to fight for the Protestant cause.
After leading a band of the most fanatical Huguenots, he and
Navarre’s relationship became strained in the 1580’s. His
first wife Marie de Clèves was the object of Henry III’s eye.
Condé was wounded at the Battle of Coutras in October
1587, but it was alleged that his death six months later was
due to his second wife (Charlotte de La Trémoille) poisoning him. In the play, Condé
accompanies Navarre on his wedding day (Scene I), is present at the death of Joan of
Navarre and the shooting of Coligny (III), and also present with Navarre when their tutors
(v1.3) Page 64 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
are murdered by Guise (IX).
“Pleshé” - Phillipe du Plessis-Mornay
(b. 05 November 1549; d. 11 November 1623):
Philippe de Mornay, seigneur du Plessis Marly, was a
Protestant writer, intellectual, politician and Henry of
Navarre’s representative. Having studied at the
Universities of Heidelberg and Padua, he joined the army
of Condé in 1567, but a fall from a horse prevented further
military action. Instead, his first published work
Dissertation sur l'Église Visible was published in 1571, and
he undertook a diplomatic mission to the Netherlands for
Coligny the following year. He escaped death in the
Massacre only with help from a Catholic friend, before
taking refuge in England. On returning to France he
rejoined Navarre’s campaign, becoming his right-hand
man and representing him on diplomatic missions to England (1577-80) and the
Netherlands (1581-2), and got to know Sir Francis Walsingham, Philip Sidney and his sister
Mary. His position became even more important after the death of Henry de BourbonCondé in 1588, and he served in Henry IV’s battle to assert his position as French king, at
the sieges of Dieppe and Rouen, and at Ivry (1590-2). He was sent on another diplomatic
mission to Queen Elizabeth, but was deeply upset when Henry IV renounced Protestantism
as a compromise in negotiations with the Catholic League. As a result, Du-Plessis-Mornay
retired from political life, devoting himself to academic study and Huguenot administration.
In the second half of the play, Pleshé appears constantly at Navarre’s side, from the death
of Charles IX (Scene XIII), through the preparation for battle with the French army led by
Joyeux (Scene XVI) to the pact with Henry III (Scenes XX and XXIV).
“Bartus” - Guillaume de Salluste Du Bartas
(b. 1544; d. July 1590):
Du Bartas was a Huguenot soldier and diplomat, but first
and foremost an epic poet. He fought in the Wars of
Religion as an officer in the Huguenot army, and in 1585
earned a position in Navarre’s household, subsequently
undertaking diplomatic missions to Denmark and
Scotland for him. His most famous work was a biblical
epic poem on the creation of the world, Première
Semaine; ou Création du Monde (1578), translated into
many languages, including English, an inspiration for
Milton’s Paradise Lost, and praised by the likes of Tasso,
d'Aubigné and James VI of Scotland. A sequel, Seconde
Semaine ou Enfance du Monde (1584) remained
unfinished when Du Bartas died shortly after the Battle of Ivry. Like Pleshé, Bartus appears
constantly at Navarre’s side in the latter part of the play, at the preparation for battle with
the French army led by Joyeux (Scene XVI), the subsequent victory (XVIII), and the pact
with Henry III (Scenes XX and XXIV).
(v1.3) Page 65 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
5.1.6
The Marlowe Society
The Huguenot Victims of the Massacre
Loreine:
Loreine, who declares himself “a preacher of the word of God” (VII.3) is
the first victim of the massacre in Marlowe’s play, stabbed by Guise in
Scene VII. It seems likely that the source of this character is someone
called Leranne who is mentioned in [Varamund] as being “thrust through
with a sworde” but who escapes death by taking refuge in Margaret of
Valois’ rooms in the Louvre.199 [Oliver] also enlarges on a theory by Ethel
Seaton200 that Marlowe’s opening line in this scene (“Loreine, Loreine,
follow Loreine” - VII.1) is a pun on the war-cry of the Guise faction
(“Follow Lorraine”) that has been ruined by the reporter or compositor.
Seroune:
Seroune dies in the next Massacre scene (VIII), stabbed by Mountsorrell
with a dagger in his own house. This scene in Marlowe’s play is clearly
sourced from one described in [Varamund]201 in which Montsoreau kills
Masson de Rivers in his home in Angiers. It has also been suggested in
[Kocher-Hotman] that “Seroune” may be an auditory error for Masson de
Rivers by the reporter.
Petrus Ramus (b. 1515; d. 26 August 1572):
Ramus was a French humanist, philosopher, logician and
educational reformer, perhaps one of the most well-known
“civilian” casualties of the Massacre. Indeed, Marlowe’s
source [Varamund] deems him worthy of mention by name
as one of those “executed without hearing”. He had
already long met with controversy in his academic career
for his anti-Aristotelian lectures and theses, despite being
appointed regius professor at the University of Paris by
King Henry II. But his enemies multiplied when he adopted
Protestantism in 1561, forcing him to leave Paris. Ramus
was again forced to leave in 1568, spending a couple of
years travelling in the Protestant heartlands of Germany
and Switzerland. The Massacre occurred not long after his
latest return to Paris. He is alleged to have hidden in a
bookshop until, on the third day of the Massacre, he returned to his rooms and was
attacked and possibly stabbed whilst at prayer202. His academic rival Pierre Charpentier
has long been suspected of organising the band of assassins, who then pushed him out of
a window before dragging him through the streets and throwing him in the Seine.203
Marlowe has Guise, Anjou, Dumaine and other Catholic nobles and soldiers come crashing
into Ramus’ study. Guise at least enters into some intellectual banter with the scholar
before Anjou stabs him whilst exclaiming “ne’er was there collier’s son so full of pride”
(Scene IX.55). The verbal sparring allows Marlowe to show off his learning, and the result
is the Guise deriding Ramus for his anti-Aristotelian rather than religious beliefs. Marlowe
also has Doctor Faustus quote Ramus in his opening soliloquy: “Bene disserere est finis
logices. / Is to dispute well logic’s chiefest end?” (I.i.7-8, the second line a translation of the
first). This is a quotation from Ramus’ Ciceronian Dialecticae, rather than a quote from
199
See quote from [Varamund] in footnote 224. There is a more detailed description of a Monsieur de Léran being saved by Margaret
of Valois in [England] p110-111. As usual in that book, no direct reference is cited for this account, although it is probably taken from
[Margaret-Memoires]
200
201
202
203
Ethel Seaton in Review of English Studies, IX (1933) p.330.
See footnote 226 for the extract from [Varamund].
Katherine Duncan-Jones, Sir Philip Sidney: Courter Poet (Yale University Press, 1991) - p.60.
[England] - p.119; Louis-Charles Dezobry & Jean Louis Thodore Bachelet, Dictionnaire de Biographie et d'Histoire (Paris, 1869).
(v1.3) Page 66 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Aristotle as Faustus implies. Ramism became popular at Christ’s College Cambridge in the
1570’s, and Gabriel Harvey lectured and wrote on the rhetoric of Ramus.
5.1.7
Taleus:
Omer Talon, aka Audomarus Talaeus (b. 1510; d. 1562):
Taleus appears in the scene (IX) in which Ramus is murdered, rushing in
to warn Ramus that “the Guisians are / Hard at thy door and mean to
murder us,” (IX.7-8) and advising him to flee as Taleus himself does.
Presumably Marlowe is referring to Omer Talon, Ramus’ academic
colleague and disciple, although he died in 1562 some ten years before
the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. Talon worked with Ramus first at
the Collège de l’Ave Maria. He did significant work on the reform of
rhetoric under Ramus’ tutelage, and had some dozen or more papers
published under his own name.
Two Schoolmasters:
The two Huguenot schoolmasters are with Navarre and Condé when
Anjou enters, soon to be joined by Guise and the Catholic mob (Scene
IX). The Huguenot leaders leave to go and complain to the King,
whereupon Guise kills the schoolmasters.
Henry III’s Mignons
The term “mignons” was a derogatory one applied to a set of Henry III’s favourites who quickly
rose to positions of prominence and influence during his reign. The term may be translated as
“darlings” or “dainty ones” and refers to the effeminate appearance and hedonistic lifestyles that
so angered those at court and the French population at large (see section 4.5.14 for a
summary).
“Epernoun” - Jean Louis de Nogaret de La Valette, Duc
d’Épernon (b. 1554; d. 1642):
Jean Louis Nogaret de La Valette was a minor French noble
from a military family, who fought on the Catholic side in the
Wars of Religion and came to the attention of Anjou during the
siege of La Rochelle. Within three years of the latter acceding
to the French throne, Nogaret de La Valette had become one
of the intimate favourites of Henry III known as ‘les mignons’,
and was granted a whole raft of titles, one of the first of which
was the specially created Dukedom of Épernon in 1581. He
was also awarded all the titles of Joyeux who died in battle in
1587. After Henry III’s assassination he could not accept
Navarre as King, and was ultimately involved in the
assassination of Henry IV in 1610, and his persecution of the
Huguenots continued thereafter. In Marlowe’s play, Epernoun is charged by Catherine with
calling Anjou back from Poland on the death of Charles IX (XIII.23-25), and is a silent
presence at the coronation (Scene XIV). He is at the King’s side when Joyeux is appointed
general, and in a position to proffer advice on the spat between Guise and Mugeroun
(Scene XVII). By the time Henry III summons Guise to explain himself, Epernoun has the
confidence of the King to the extent he is able to rebuke Guise with the king’s full support
(XIX.23-26 and 37-40) and afterwards to use his position as most trusted advisor to
suggest to Henry the assassination of Guise. He is now constantly at the King’s side, both
following the murder of Guise, and at the military camp of Saint Cloud. When the friar
appears, it is Epernoun who is suspicious, but his fears are tragically not heeded.
(v1.3) Page 67 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
“Mugeroun” - Louis de Maugiron, Baron of Ampus
(b. 1560; d. 27 April 1578):
The son of a captain in the royal army, Louis de Maugiron also
distinguished himself on the field of battle at the siege of
Issoire (1577), but lost an eye in the process. He was still
deemed one of the most beautiful men at court, and was one
of Henry III’s coterie of mignons. A more tragic fate befell
Maugiron the following year in the so-called ‘Duel of the
Mignons’ when the rival court parties of the King and the Duke
of Guise decided to re-enact the Roman battle between the
Horatii and Curatii triplets. Maugiron died pointlessly in this
dangerous and foolhardy entertainment, which also cost the
lives of three of the other five participants. Marlowe seems to
have confused or conflated Maugiron with other real life character(s) (most notably Saint
Mégrin who was allegedly killed for having an affair with Guise’s wife), but certainly paints
him as the extravagant and carefree hedonist type that we might expect of a mignon. We
first come across “Mugeroun” at Henry III’s post-coronation reception, in the curious
incident in which he cuts off the ear of a cutpurse, an event for which there is no known
source. Then we learn that he has thrown caution to the wind by conducting an affair with
none other than the Duchess of Guise (Scene XV), but is non-plussed when told that an
enraged Guise has discovered his cuckolding (Scene XVII). He is confident he can deal
with the Duke, and heads off to find him, only to be shot dead by the soldier hired by Guise
(Scene XIX).
“Joyeux” - Anne de Joyeuse, Duc de Joyeuse
(b. 1560; d. 20 October 1587):
Anne de Joyeuse was born in 1560, and after studying at the
College of Navarre at the university of Paris, joined his father
Guillaume, Vicomte de Joyeuse, to fight against the
Huguenots in Languedoc and Auvergne from 1577 onwards.
Within a few years, he had become a member of the king’s
intimate circle of mignons. The monarch arranged his
marriage to Marguerite of Lorraine in 1581, a lavish
celebration that came to characterise the extravagance of
Henry III’s reign, and which involved a royal gift of 300,000
crowns and Anne’s elevation to a Dukedom that was granted
precedence over all other nobles in the land. The following year, Joyeuse was appointed
Grand Admiral of France at the age of just 21, and Governor of Alençon following the death
of the King’s younger brother in 1584. But in June 1587 he fell out of favour after instigating
the massacre of 800 Huguenots at Saint-Eloi in Poitou. In a bid to regain favour, he put
himself up to lead troops against Navarre, but was defeated and captured in a major battle
at Coutras in October. Despite a ransom of 100,000 crowns, he was shot by the Huguenots
in revenge for the massacre committed at Poitou. Marlowe confers on Joyeux the briefest
of appearances at the start of Scene XVII, when Henry III grants his request to lead the
French army against Navarre in the forthcoming battle (which must be at Coutras). No
mention is made of the massacre of St-Eloi in the extant play; instead we simply learn of
Navarre’s victory in Scene XVIII, and that “the Duke is slain” (XVIII.1).
(v1.3) Page 68 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
5.1.8
The Marlowe Society
Other Minor Characters
Apothecary:
The apothecary brings the poisoned gloves to Guise in Scene II that the
Duke must have previously ordered. The apothecary himself delivers
these as a gift to Joan of Navarre in Scene III, exiting quickly before the
old Queen dies.
Soldier who
Shoots
Coligny:
Having dispatched the apothecary with the gloves, Guise summons a
soldier, instructing him to “discharge thy musket and perform [Admiral
Coligny’s] death” (II.29). The shooting occurs in Scene III as Coligny
returns from the Louvre, where Marlowe has just had the Queen of
Navarre poisoned. The man hired to shoot Coligny in real life was called
Maurevert or Maurevel. He was lodged at the house near the Louvre
belonging to Villemur, a former tutor of Guise, a house where Madame
de Nemours (the widow of Guise’s father) was allegedly staying until a
few days before the shooting. This circumstantial evidence alone strongly
suggests the Guise faction to have hired the contract killer. Maurevert
shot the Admiral with a long harquebus from an upstairs window in this
house, and then made quick his escape to the Guise stronghold of
Joinville, well to the east of Paris, via a chain of horses readied for him.
By the time Coligny’s followers had broken down the door of the house,
the shooter was nowhere to be found.
Cossin:
Cossin, Captain of the King’s Guard is commanded by Charles to guard
the convalescing Admiral Coligny (IV.63-66). However, Cossin is in the
Guise’s pay (as Anjou explains at V.19-20), and allows the Catholics in to
murder the Huguenot leader. These details Marlowe has taken from
[Varamund] - see footnote 216 in section 5.3.3.5.
Seroune’s
Wife:
Answers the door at the opening of Scene VIII to Mountsorrell, who has
come to murder her husband.
Two Lords of
Poland:
Two Polish Lords are present as Anjou makes his acceptance speech of
the crown of Poland in Scene X.
Two Parisian
Catholics:
“Two enter with the Admiral’s body” and joke about how best to dispose
of the dead Huguenot, before “hang[ing] him here upon this tree” (XI.10).
Cutpurse:
A cutpurse has cut off the gold buttons from Mugeroun’s cloak, and has
his ear cut off by the mignon as punishment for his crime (Scene XIV).
Duchess of
Guise’s Maid:
Fetches pen, ink and paper for the Duchess to write to her lover
Mugeroun in Scene XV.
Soldier who
Shoots
Mugeroun:
Guise again pays a soldier, this time to shoot Mugeroun in Scene XVII,
the King’s mignon having cuckolded him. The soldier makes a speech full
of sexual innuendo as he waits for Mugeroun. This is the scene of which
a fuller manuscript version appears on the Folger leaf.
Captain:
The Captain of the King’s (Henry III’s) Guard who organises the murder
of Guise in Scene XXI. It was the Duke of Epernon who had organised
the so-called “Forty-Five”, 45 guards selected to protect Henry III, and
who were employed to murder both Guise and his brother the Cardinal.
(v1.3) Page 69 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
5.2
Sc. I
The Marlowe Society
Three
Murderers:
Marlowe has the Captain of the Guard employ “three murderers” to kill
Guise in Scene XXI, although in reality it would have been members of
the Forty-Five. The murderers initially express determination in their task,
albeit the third is motivated by money and is less confident when he
comes face to face with Guise. Nevertheless, the first two murderers
emerge from their hiding place and complete the deed. They are
immediately instructed by Henry III to go and kill the Cardinal, the Guise’s
brother, which they do in Scene XXII.
The Friar:
Jacques Clément (b. 1567; d. 01 August 1589):
The Friar comes to Duke Dumaine, Guise’s surviving brother, in Scene
XXIII offering to kill the king. This he does in the following scene, gaining
access under the pretext of having a letter to deliver, and getting close
enough to stab Henry III, who grabs the knife and kills him in return. This
is all close to the real-life and recent events of 1589, when Jacques
Clément, a Dominican friar, assassinated Henry III at St Cloud outside
Paris in exactly this manner (although it was the King’s Guard who killed
the friar rather than the King himself).
Surgeon:
A surgeon is called for by Navarre to attend to the stabbed Henry III in
Scene XXIV. But after examining the king, he declares that a poisoned
knife has been used, and therefore there is no hope of survival.
The English
Agent:
The tantalising appearance of an English agent in the final scene,
summoned to the death-bed of Henry III to take news to Elizabeth of the
assassination attempt, and Henry’s determination to defeat the Catholics.
Messengers:
A messenger brings King Charles IX news of Coligny’s shooting in Scene
IV. Another brings news to Navarre of the approaching French army led
by the Duke of Joyeux (Scene XVI). A third announces the arrival of the
Friar in Scene XXIV, and later in the same scene is sent to fetch the
English Agent.
Attendants:
Attendants carry away the bodies of Admiral Coligny in Scene XI, King
Charles IX in Scene XIII, Mugeroun in Scene XIX, and the friar in Scene
XXIV. Attendants are also in the crowd for the coronation of Henry III in
Scene XIV, one of them asked to take the cutpurse away to jail by Guise
before the king intervenes. Attendants take the Duke of Guise’s son away
to prison after the murder of his father in Scene XXI. If the cast supports
it, there would be additional extras in the various court scenes. An
attendant brings pen and ink to Henry III in Scene XIX.
Soldiers:
Soldiers that support the Catholic mob during the massacre.
Plot Summary
The play opens with the pivotal wedding of the Huguenot Henry of Navarre to the
French king’s sister, Margaret of Valois, at Notre Dame. Originally arranged to try and
heal the religious divisions, we instead see the distrust and malice between the three
factions: the Queen Mother Catherine de Medici’s malicious intent towards Navarre,
and the Huguenot’s severe distrust of the Catholic Guise faction.
(v1.3) Page 70 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Sc. II
The Duke of Guise confirms that Huguenot distrust as he sets in motion plots to
murder both the Queen of Navarre and Admiral Coligny, before launching into a
soliloquy that outlines his Machiavellian aim to win the French crown for himself.
Sc. III
The plots quickly come to fruition as first the Queen of Navarre dies after the
Apothecary presents her with poisoned gloves, and then Admiral Coligny is shot from
a nearby window as he and others bear the Queen’s body away.
Sc. IV
The royal family and Guise leaders plan the forthcoming massacre, after which
Charles, King of France, goes to see the injured Admiral and offer his sympathies.
Sc. V
The Guisian nobles set the Massacre in progress with the murder of Admiral Coligny
in his bed.
Sc. VI
The Massacre spreads through the city, as signified by this briefest of scenes in which
Guise, Anjou and the rest charge across the stage crying for Huguenot blood.
Sc. VII
Guise murders a Huguenot preacher called Loreine.
Sc. VIII
Mountsorrell murders a Huguenot (another preacher?) called Seroune in his house.
Sc. IX
The Guisian nobles continue the massacre in Paris with the murder of three Huguenot
scholars. Guise engages in some intellectual debate with the eminent French
humanist, logician and mathematician, Petrus Ramus, before Anjou kills him in cold
blood. The Catholic mob then search out the two tutors to Navarre and Condé. The
Huguenot leaders run off to tell the king, leaving the scholars at the mercy of Guise,
who kills them both.
Sc. X
Anjou, the King’s younger brother and heir to the French throne who we have just
seen murder Petrus Ramus in the previous scene, now accepts an offer of the crown
of Poland.
Sc. XI
The action returns to the aftermath of the Massacre, with the body of Admiral Coligny
being disposed of, and Guise worried about pockets of Huguenots who are apparently
hiding in the woods. Catherine de Medici expresses concern that her son, King
Charles IX, may be feeling guilty about the Massacre, and states her intention to deal
with him.
Sc. XII
This brief scene shows the Guise carrying out his threat to murder the Huguenots
hiding in the woods.
Sc. XIII
With the Massacre finished, events take a further turn in favour of the Catholics as the
guilt-racked King Charles IX dies. His mother can hardly wait to call his younger
brother Anjou back from Poland to be crowned as King Henry III of France. Navarre
meanwhile immediately recognises the danger this represents for him, and makes
plans to escape the French court where he has been held since the Massacre.
Sc. XIV
Anjou is crowned as King Henry III of France, and his mother Catherine makes a great
show of welcoming him, whilst behind his back making clear that she will continue to
be the real power behind the throne. Guise is secretly raising an army with which to
attack Navarre, and Catherine will use her sway to have Henry support this act of war.
Sc. XV
The Duchess of Guise is writing to her lover, Mugeroun, when her husband bursts in
and discovers her infidelity, vowing revenge against him.
(v1.3) Page 71 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Sc. XVI
Navarre, escaped from the French court and back in his homeland, hears news that
the French army organised by Guise, but led by Joyeux, has come to attack him.
Sc. XVII
A small step back in time finds King Henry III appointing his mignon Joyeux to lead the
army that will march against Navarre, and then baiting the Duke of Guise about being
cuckolded by another of his mignons, Mugeroun.
Sc. XVIII News reaches Navarre on the battlefield that Joyeux is slain, signalling a Huguenot
victory.
Sc. XIX
Mugeroun is murdered by a soldier hired by the Duke of Guise to revenge the
mignon’s affair with his wife. Subsequently, the King and Duke engage in a lengthy
political negotiation in which Henry III tries to assert his authority and force Guise to
disband his personal armies. The King distrusts the Duke’s acquiescence, and he and
Epernoun plot to escape Paris but murder Guise.
Sc. XX
Navarre hears news that Guise is taking arms against Henry III, and quickly resolves
to offer a pact with the French King to use a joint military force to defeat Guise.
Sc. XXI
The Duke of Guise has been persuaded to attend the royal court at Blois, but three
assassins hired by the King murder him. Henry shows the body to the Duke’s son who
is then imprisoned, and also instigates the murder of the Duke’s brothers to minimise
the risk of revenge. Henry informs his mother of the murder only after the act, and she
is devastated at her son’s actions.
Sc. XXII
Guise’s brother, the Cardinal of Guise, is strangled to death by two of the murderers
who killed the Duke.
Sc. XXIII Dumaine has received news of his elder brother Guise’s murder at the hands of the
King. A Jacobin friar offers to kill Henry and provide the revenge he seeks.
Sc. XXIV The two Kings of France and Navarre join forces to take on the Catholic League in
Paris. Under the pretence of delivering a letter, the Jacobin friar gains access and
stabs Henry III. Henry kills the friar in the struggle, but when it becomes clear that the
King will not survive, he declares Navarre as heir to the French throne. The play ends
with Navarre, now King Henry IV, vowing yet more revenge on the Catholic League.
5.3
Scene by Scene Summary
5.3.1
Scene Division
All textual reference in this document follows the [Oliver] scene division and line numbering, if
only for the reason that this may be the modern edition that most readers will likely be able to
refer to.
The original undated Octavo edition of the play contained no scene divisions. Most subsequent
editors have variously introduced their own scene divisions, with most discrepancy around the
extremely brief pieces of action depicting the murders during the Massacre.
•
The [Oxberry] edition of the play in 1818 also contained no scene divisions;
(v1.3) Page 72 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
5.3.2
The Marlowe Society
•
[Robinson]’s collected works divided the Massacre at Paris into five acts, each divided
into scenes. The first act covered the Massacre (scenes I to IX in [Oliver]), with Act II
beginning at [Oliver]’s scene X, where Anjou accepts the crown of Poland.
•
[Dyce] followed [O] in having no scene division in The Massacre at Paris contained in
his collected works (1850).
•
[Cunningham] also divided the play into five Acts with further scene divisions in his
collected works published in 1870.
•
[Bullen] was the first to introduce a simple scene division without acts, breaking the play
down into 24 scenes when he published his collected works in 1885. [Oliver] follows
[Bullen] with the exception of Scenes V to VII204.
•
W.W.Greg [GregMalone] largely follows the scene division of [Bullen] when he edited
the Malone Society Reprint in 1928.
•
[Bennett] also employed a simple scene division in his edition of the play published in
1931, but with slightly more differences to [Bullen] than [GregMalone].
Quotations
A quotation from each scene accompanies the relevant summary below. The [Oliver] Revels
series version of the play is quoted, which (as with all quotes in this overview) employs modern
spelling and punctuation.
5.3.3
Scene by Scene Summary
5.3.3.1 Scene I - The Wedding of Navarre and Margaret
Location: Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris.
Navarre:
But he that sits and rules above the clouds,
Doth hear and see the prayers of the just,
And will revenge the blood of innocents
That Guise hath slain by treason of his heart,
And brought by murder to their timeless ends.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc I.41-5
This opening scene introduces both the historical context205 of the action to follow, and the
three factions (Royal family, Catholic Guise faction, and Protestant Huguenots). It is likely that
many in the original audience would have been broadly familiar with the main protagonists, with
Guise murdered at the end of 1588, Catherine and Henry III dying in 1589, and Navarre still
trying to assert his authority as King of France even as the play debuted at The Rose in
January 1593. However, it is worth noting that Marlowe has changed the chronological order of
events (both in real life and as laid out in his source [Varamund]) to start his drama with this
pivotal wedding scene, with the earlier death of Navarre’s mother delayed until Scene III.
204
[Bullen] starts Scene V at [Oliver]’s IV.49.1 (“Enter the Admiral in his bed”); [Bullen]’s Scene VI is [Oliver]’s Scene V; [Oliver]
breaks [Bullen]’s single scene VII into two very short scenes VI (Guise and Anjou chasing Protestants) and VII (Murder of Loreine).
205
See section 4.5.6 for a historical summary of the marriage of Navarre and Margaret.
(v1.3) Page 73 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
King Charles IX opens the play with an apparently sincere welcome to the Huguenot Navarre,
who has just married his sister Margaret, expressing the hope that both their union, and the
“religious league” (I.3) that the wedding was also intended to cement, will last “till death
dissolve our lives” (I.5). The king’s mother, Catherine de Medici, makes a slightly more
ambiguous welcome: “You see we love you well” (I.13), “our difference in religion / Might be a
means to cross you in your love.” This difference is emphasised when the bride’s family head
inside the cathedral for a mass, leaving the Huguenots outside206. As she departs, Catherine
reveals her true intentions to the audience in an aside: she confides that she will “dissolve [the
union] with blood and cruelty.” Here Marlowe is already insinuating the Queen Mother’s guilt in
the massacre; it was after all Catherine de Medici who had arranged this marriage in the face of
opposition on both sides.
Twiddling their thumbs outside Notre Dame, the three Huguenot leaders - Navarre, Prince
Condé and Admiral Coligny - discuss their distrust of the Guises. Navarre initially states that
now he is married to the king’s sister, Guise can “do us little hurt” (I.27) even though he “seeks
to murder all the protestants” (I.30). In anticipation of the massacre to come, Navarre has heard
rumour “that all the Protestants that are in Paris / Should have been murdered the other night”
had Guise obtained the King’s consent. Condé wonders that Guise should require the King’s
consent, “For what he doth the Pope will ratify” (I.39). Coligny notes how the Guise faction “did
storm at these your nuptial rites” (I.48) because the marriage has only served to reinforce
Navarre’s claim to the French throne should the Valois line die out.
Navarre, somewhat insipidly, can only assert his faith in God, who he implicitly believes to be
on his side, the side of the “just” (I.42). In this reported play text, the character of Navarre is left
with few meaty or lengthy speeches, and his character rarely extends beyond a onedimensional Protestant mouth-piece.207 We wonder how Marlowe pitched him in the original
text, but it seems clear that he was far from being the clear-cut hero of the piece.
5.3.3.2 Scene II - Guise Plots Two Murders and his Own Rise
Location: The Guise’s Apartments.
Guise:
What glory is there in a common good,
That hangs for every peasant to achieve?
That like I best that flies beyond my reach.
Set me to scale the high Pyramides,
And thereon set the Diadem of France,
I’ll either rend it with my nails to naught,
Or mount the top with my aspiring wings,
Although my downfall be the deepest hell.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc II.37-44
Following on from the Huguenot distrust expressed at the end of the previous scene, we are
now introduced to the Duke of Guise who immediately confirms their worst fears to the
audience as he secretly plans the murders of both the Queen of Navarre (Henry of Navarre’s
mother) and Admiral Coligny. Having set these plots in motion, Guise delivers a
characteristically Marlovian speech in which he outlines his Machiavellian aspirations in one of
the few lengthy and substantial soliloquies remaining in the extant text. The quality of the verse
206
This detail is also in [Varamund]: “... the bride was with great traine and pompe led into the Church to heare Masse, and in the
meane time the brydgrome who mislyked these ceremonies, together with Henrie Prince of Conde, sonne of Lewes, and the Admirall,
and other noble men of the same Religion, walked without the Church dore, wayting for the Brides returne.” All extracts from
[Varamund] are quoted from Appendix B of [Oliver]
207
See [Oliver] pp.lxiv-lxvi for a discussion of Navarre’s character.
(v1.3) Page 74 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
here hints at an untarnished remnant from Marlowe’s original play (see section 2.2.2 for a
discussion of the text).
Guise rages against the marriage of Navarre and Margaret (“If ever sun stain’d heaven with
bloody clouds” - II.3) before calling for his loyal Apothecary and hatching a plan to poison the
Queen of Navarre by presenting her with a pair of perfumed gloves208. Shortly a soldier is
summoned and another murder plot hatched: “Stand in some window opening near the street, /
And when thou seest the Admiral ride by, / Discharge thy musket and perform his death (II.268)209.
The Duke is then left alone on stage as he shares his “deep-engender’d thoughts” (II.31) at
some length with the audience. His aspirations are high as befits a Marlovian anti-hero (“that
like I best that flies beyond my reach” - II.39), and his aim is nothing less than the “diadem of
France”. He is determined to realise these ambitions by whatever means necessary, having
“learnd, / That peril is the chiefest way to happiness, / And resolution honours fairest aim.”
(II.34-6). But Guise’s methods are ruthlessly Machiavellian, and he “hath often pleaded kindred
to the king” (II.48) whilst at the same time plotting for the crown, as “this head, this heart, this
hand and sword, / Contrive, imagine and fully execute / Matters of import, aimed at by many, /
Yet understood by none.” (II.49-52). Guise is dismissive of Charles’ weakness, and believes he
has the king, whom “as a child, I daily win with words” (II.70), under his control and even
prepared to take responsibility for Guise’s actions. Catherine de Medici is also firmly under his
spell, working “wonders for my sake / And in my love entombs the hope of France / Rifling the
bowels of her treasury” (II.73-5).
The Duke of Guise also confirms the earlier Huguenot fears of powerful Catholic backing,
boasting of significant financial support from Spain and the Vatican. But whilst those supporters
are religiously motivated, Guise uses religion merely for his own ends: “My policy hath framed
religion. / Religion: O Diabole! / Fie, I am ashamed, however that I seem, / To think a word of
such a simple sound, / Of so great matter should be made the ground” (II.62-6). With a staunch
and aggressively Catholic Paris, Guise “hast all the cards within thy hands / To shuffle or to cut,
take this as surest thing: / That right or wrong, thou deal'st thyself a King” (II.85-7). Navarre and
his “rabblement of heretics” (II.90) will be dealt with.
Guise compares himself to Caesar, a man not afraid to take on and beat his enemies in pursuit
of ultimate power (we will ultimately see the Duke of Guise assassinated by his rivals for power
just as Caesar was), and ends his speech by reaffirming his determination to succeed: “The
plot is laid, and things shall come to pass, / Where resolution strives for victory” (II.104-5).
5.3.3.3 Scene III - The Queen of Navarre is Murdered; Coligny is Shot
Location: Navarre’s Quarters in Paris / A Paris Street.
Navarre:
My Mother poisoned here before my face:
O gracious God, what times are these?
O grant sweet God my days may end with hers,
That I with her may die and live again.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc III.21-4
208
As noted in section 4.5.5, it is unlikely in reality that this is how Joan of Navarre died. There were however contemporary rumours,
and Marlowe’s source describes the use of poisoned gloves to murder the Queen of Navarre. [Varamund] does not identify Guise as
being behind the murder though, but does mention the “King’s Apothecary”.
209
Again [Varamund] does not identify Guise as being behind the attempted assassination of the Admiral, saying only that the Duke of
Guise was playing tennis with King Charles at the time of the shooting. As noted in section 4.5.7, in real-life the house from which the
shot was fired was alleged to be owned by the Duke of Guise.
(v1.3) Page 75 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
We now see the results of the Guise’s murderous plots come quickly to fruition at a gathering of
Huguenot royalty and leaders (Navarre, his new wife, his mother, the Prince of Condé and
Admiral Coligny). First the Queen of Navarre dies210 after the Apothecary presents her with the
poisoned gloves, and then Admiral Coligny is shot211 as he and others bear her body away.
The drama is brief and the dialogue little more than functional. What little characterisation
remains, hints at a rather weak Navarre. His reaction to his mother’s death is understandably
emotional, but there is more a sense of fatalistic helplessness than any angry statement of
intended revenge: “O gracious God, what times are these? O grant sweet God my days may
end with hers” (III.22-3). After Coligny is shot, Navarre again fails to come across as a
charismatic leader; rather his first reaction is to run and tell the King (III.33-5).
However the extant text has been edited from the original, it still seems certain that Marlowe
has telescoped events here to meet his dramatic needs. As noted, in reality the death of Joan
of Navarre took place some two months before the wedding, whilst Coligny was shot four days
after the wedding, and this relative chronology would have been clear to Marlowe from
[Varamund]. The details of the method of each attack do however stick closely to the source
material. Varamund describes the use of poisoned gloves: “Joane Queene of Navarre ... died in
the court in Paris of a sodaine sicknesse, ... where as the suspition was great that she dyed of
poison, and hir body being for that cause opened by the Phisitions, there were no tokens of
poison espied. But shortely after, by the detection of one A.P. it hath ben founde that she was
poisoned with a venomed smell of a payre of perfumed gloues, dressed by one Renat the
Kings Apothicarie, an Italian...”.
[Varamund] also describes Coligny being shot in the arm from the window of a house: “The
Admirall ... moved the Kings privie Counsell the 22. of August, which was the fifte daye after the
King of Nauarres marriage, and spent much time in that treatie. About noone, when he was in
returning home from the Counsell212, with a greate companie of noblemen and Gentlemen,
beholde, a Harquebuzier213 out of a window of a house neere adioyning, shot ye Admiral with
two bullets of leade through both the armes.”
5.3.3.4 Scene IV - Planning the Massacre; the King Visits Coligny
Location: The French Court.
Anjou:
Though gentle minds should pity others’ pains,
Yet will the wisest note their proper griefs:
And rather seek to scourge their enemies,
Then be themselves base subjects to the whip.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc IV.13-6
The scene comprises two separate meetings. First the Catholic leaders plan the forthcoming
massacre, after which Charles, King of France, goes to see the injured Admiral and offer his
sympathies. Many editors divide these into two separate scenes, but [Oliver] argues that the
fluidity of the action demands a single scene with a number of the actors remaining on stage
and merely moving to a separate location for the interview with Coligny.214
210
211
212
See section 4.5.5 for a historical summary of the Queen of Navarre’s death.
See section 4.5.7 for a historical summary of Coligny’s shooting.
This meeting took place at The Louvre in reality.
213
An arquebusier was a soldier armed with an arquebus, an early muzzle-loaded firearm that was succeeded by the musket (both a
fore-runner of the rifle).
214
[Oliver] - footnote to Sc II.49, p.108.
(v1.3) Page 76 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
The playwright has reversed the order of these two meetings compared to the sequence in his
source, and in so doing, Oliver notes, he has introduced a distinct hypocrisy to the King’s
apparent sympathy for the Admiral, having just been present at the planning of the massacre
which Charles must have suspected will involve Coligny’s death.
Marlowe does have the King worry at the reaction of other countries to the proposed massacre,
as well as expressing some qualms at such a horrific act: “... my heart relents that noble men, /
Only corrupted in religion, / Ladies of honour, Knights and Gentlemen, / Should for their
conscience taste such ruthless ends”. But after swift arguments from both Anjou and Guise, the
king limply agrees to accede to their plans: “What you determine, I will ratify” (IV.25).
Guise outlines his plans for the massacre. The “actors in this Massacre, / Shall wear white
crosses on their Burgonets, / And tie white linen scarves about their arms” (IV.29-31) to identify
themselves. “A peal of ordinance from the tower” (IV.34) is the signal for the Parisians to take
to the streets, and “a bell shall ring” (IV.36) to signal the start of the killing. These details are
again contained in Marlowe’s source.215
These discussions are interrupted by the arrival of the Admiral’s man who reports the shooting.
Catherine de Medici advises the king to “best go visit him, / And make a show as if all were
well.” (IV.46-7). This Charles does, offering the Admiral both sympathy and justice: “I vow and
swear, as I am king of France, / To find and to repay the man with death / ... That durst
presume ... / To hurt the noble man their sovereign loves” (IV.52-6). He also offers the Admiral
an armed guard under Cossin, the Captain of the King’s Guard, but we later learn that this is
somewhat treacherous, for Cossin is a Catholic sympathiser and will let the Admiral’s
murderers in unopposed216.
5.3.3.5 Scene V - Admiral Coligny is Murdered in his Bed
Location: The Streets of Paris and Admiral Coligny’s House.
Guise:
The Admiral,
Chief standard bearer to the Lutherans,
Shall in the entrance of this Massacre,
Be murdered in his bed..
The Massacre at Paris, Sc V.10-13
The Guisians are about to set the Massacre in progress with the murder of Admiral Coligny217
in his bed, but first we find the Duke of Guise rousing his cohorts “to kill all that you suspect of
heresy” (V.3). The group comprises Dumaine (the Duke’s brother), Gonzago and Retes
(Catholic noblemen and military commanders in the French Wars of Religion), and perhaps
most interestingly the Duke of Anjou, the younger brother of King Charles who he would
succeed as Henry III. As king, Anjou will increasingly become the enemy of Guise, and will
ultimately murder the Duke in the latter part of the play. It might have been interesting in the full
play to see his character develop as he is driven to this desperate climax.
215
[Varamund] cites the Duke of Guise identifying “the token to set vpon them” will be a “tocksein or ringing of the great bel of the
Palace”, and the “marke for them to be knowne from other, should be a white linen cloth hanged about their lefte arme, and a white
crosse pinned vppon their capes.”
216
This again comes from [Varamund] except that it is Anjou, the King’s brother and future king Henry III, who commands Cossin to
guard the Admiral’s house. As Varamund puts it, “There could hardly a man be founde more hatefull against the Admiralles part, nor
more affected to the Guisians, than this Cossin.” So Marlowe is again blackening the character of Charles. Varamund also specifies that
Catherine de Medici and the Duke of Anjou joined the king on his visit to the Admiral; in Marlowe’s play it is not clear who, if anyone,
joins the king at the Admiral’s bedside.
217
See section 4.5.7 for a historical summary of Coligny’s murder.
(v1.3) Page 77 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
The nobles swear allegiance and head off to the house where the Admiral is recuperating.
Gonzago takes a group of soldiers off to “beset his house, that not a man may live” (V.15). The
rest are left on the main stage to guard the outside of the Admiral’s house in “the lane”, to “slay
his servants that shall issue out” (V.25). Anjou reveals the treacherous truth about the guard
the king provided for Coligny. Gonzago’s mob enter the Admiral’s bedroom (presumably on the
upper stage or balcony) where they threaten and taunt the Admiral: in response to his begging
to be allowed one last prayer, Gonzago replies: “Then pray unto our lady; kiss the cross”
(V.28). He then quickly stabs the Admiral to death, before throwing the body down onto the
street.218
Anjou fears the possibility of someone else standing in for the Admiral, but Guise identifies the
corpse:219 “I know him by his look” (V.35), and by the gunshot wound in the arm of course.220
The dead Admiral is slurred and his body abused: “The Duke of Guise stamps on thy lifeless
bulk!” (V.41) whilst Anjou orders the mob to “cut off his head and hands / And send them for a
present to the Pope” (V.42-3), and then “drag his corse, / And he that living hated so the Cross,
/ Shall, being dead, be hang’d thereon in chains.” (V.45-7).221 The nobles swear their
murderous intentions once more, before Mountsorrell is dispatched to “shoot the ordinance off”
(V.53), “then toll the bell” (V.55) to signal the start of the massacre.
5.3.3.6 Scenes VI to VIII - The Murders of Loreine and Seroune
Location: The Streets of Paris; Seroune’s House.
Mountsorrell:
Christ, villain? Why dar’st thou presume to call on Christ without the
intercession of some saint? Sanctus Jacobus, he was my saint; pray to
him.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc VIII.10-12
There follows a number of scenes showing the Guise mob murdering various Huguenots.222
The action in scenes VI to VIII is particularly brief in the extant text, and the scene division
somewhat arbitrary in places.223 Scene VI, as it is here delineated, simply involves Guise, Anjou
and the rest charging across the stage crying that the Huguenots be murdered, before they find
some prey in Scene VII in the shape of a Huguenot preacher called Loreine,224 who is duly
stabbed by Guise himself.
The murder of Seroune by Mountsorrell is also quick-fire in Scene VIII. Mountsorrell has come
from the Duke of Guise and barges into Seroune’s home past his wife, making clear his intent
218
It would be interesting to know how that would have been simulated on the Rose’s stage.
219
This would again to be sourced from [Varamund] who states “by reason of the wound in his head, and his face couered with bloud
they could not well discerne him, the Duke of Guise kneeled down on the ground and wiped him with a napkin and sayde, now I know
him, it is he.”
220
A repeat of the phrase “Chief standard-bearer to the Lutherans” here (l.39) from earlier in this same scene (l.11) hints at the reported
nature of the text.
221
Again this is very close to [Varamund]: “Then a certaine Italian of Gonzagues band, cut off the Admirals head, & sent it preservued
with spices to Rome to the Pope and the Cardinall of Loreine. Other cut off his hands, other his secret partes. Then the common
laborers and rascalles three days together dragged the deade bodie thus mangled and berayed with bloude and filth, through the streates,
and afterward drewe it out of the towne to the common gallowes, and hanged it vp with a rope by the feete.”
222
223
See section 4.5.8 for a historical summary of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.
As noted in section 5.3.1, the scene division here follows [Oliver].
224
The historical identity of Loreine is unknown. It could be a compositorial error. [Varamund] describes an attack on one “Leranne
the sonne of Odou” who is staying in the Louvre ostensibly under the protection of the King. “Leranne beeing thrust through with a
sworde, escaped and ranne into the Queene of Nauarres Chamber, and was by hir kept and preserued from the violence of those that
pursued him.” Leranne’s survival and the location (the fact that he is being pursued, and that Guise’s final instruction is to “drag him
away, and throw him in a ditch”, both suggest an outdoor location in Marlowe’s scene) argue against this being Marlowe’s source for
the Loreine scene, since Marlowe elsewhere follows closely the detail in [Varamund]. The other less specific confusion might be with
Lorraine, from which the House of Guise is descended.
(v1.3) Page 78 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
by displaying his dagger. Seroune begs to be allowed a prayer before death, but as soon as he
begins to pray directly to Christ, Mountsorrell interjects derisively. “Why dar’st thou presume to
call on Christ without the intercession of some saint,” (VIII.10-11) he demands, again
emphasising the religious differences that motivate this murder.
This scene clearly derives from [Varamund], who describes Monsorel225 travelling to Angiers to
murder a pastor who is actually called Masson de Rivers226 (Kocher wonders in [KocherHotman] whether this might not be an auditory error somewhere along the line). Apart from
implicitly moving the scene from Angiers to Paris, the extant text also has Seroune stabbed (as
was Loreine before) rather than being “shot through with a pellet” as [Varamund] describes.
Perhaps most significantly, Marlowe has the murderer explicitly claiming to be sent by his
villain, the Duke of Guise, rather than on the “King’s commandment” as [Varamund] describes.
5.3.3.7 Scene IX - The Murders of Ramus and the Huguenot Schoolmasters
Location: Ramus’ Study; Navarre’s Study
Guise:
Marry sir, in having a smack in all,
And yet didst never sound any thing to the depth.
Was it not thou that scoff'dst the Organon,
And said it was a heap of vanities?
He that will be a flat dichotomist,
And seen in nothing but Epitomies
Is in your judgment thought a learned man;
And he forsooth must go and preach in Germany:
Excepting against Doctors actions,
And ipse dixi with this quidditie,
Argumentum testimonii est inartificiale.
To contradict which, I say Ramus shall dye.
How answer you that? Your nego argumentum
Cannot serve, Sirrah, kill him.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc IX.24-37
Following on from the murder of two religious figures, the concluding scene of the Paris
Massacre sequence comprises the murders of three Huguenot scholars.227 The first is the
eminent French humanist, logician and mathematician, Petrus Ramus,228 who most notably
225
[Oliver] p.114 speculates that ‘Montsorel’ may be identified with the historical figure of Montsoreau. Charles de Chambes, Count
of Montsoreau (1549-1621), most famous for assassinating Bussy d’Amboise for seducing his wife. D’Amboise is the eponymous
subject of George Chapman’s (1604?) play, clearly influenced by Marlowe, and this episode would also later inspire events in
Alexandre Dumas’ novel La Dame de Montsoreau.
226
[Varamund] describes the event thus: “Masson de Rivers ... was a pastor of the church, and esteemed a singular man both in
vertuousnesse of life, and excellence of wit and learning, and was the first that had layd the foundacion of the Churche of Paris. As sone
as the slaughter was begon at Paris, Monsorel a most cruell enimie of the Religion was sente to Angiers in post to prevent al other that
might carie tidings of the murdering. As sone as he came into ye towne, he caused himself to be brought to Massons house. There he
met Massons wife in the entrie, and gently saluted hir, and asked hir where hir husband was, she answered that he was walking in the
garden, and by and by she brought Monsorell to hir husbande, who gently embraced Masson and sayde vnto him: Canst thou tell why I
am come hither? It is to kyll thee by the Kings commaundement at this very instant time, for so have the King commaunded, as thou
mayste perceiue by these letters, and therewith he shewed him his dagge ready charged. Masson answered that he was not guiltie of any
crime, howbeit this one thing only he besought him, to giue him space to call to the mercie of God, and to commende his spirit into
Gods hande. Which prayer as soone as he had ended in fewe wordes, he meekely receiued the death offered by the other, and was shot
through with a pellet, and dyed.”
227
See section 4.5.8 for a historical summary of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, including the murder of Ramus.
228
Petrus (anglicised as Peter) Ramus (1515-1572) was a French humanist who had constantly come into conflict with the conservative
authorities even before his conversion to Protestantism in 1561. [Varamund] mentions his death in passing: “Why were so many aged
persons, many that lay sicke in their beds, many gownemen, many Counsellers, Aduocates, Proctors, Phisitions, many singularly
learned professors and teachers of good artes, and among the rest Petrus Ramus that renoumed man throughout the worlde, ...” See
section 5.1 for a brief summary of Ramus.
(v1.3) Page 79 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
taught a reformed version of Aristotelian logic. In the second part of the scene, two
schoolmasters who tutor the Huguenot leaders Navarre and Condé are killed. As the action and
actors are continuous, these two murders are treated as a single scene by most editors,
although the change of location would require careful staging.
Ramus is disturbed from his studies by “fearful cries [coming] from the river Seine” (IX.1), and
fears the Guisians “mean once more to menace me” (IX.4). His friend Taleus229 rushes in,
urging him to “fly, if thou’st wilt save thy life” (IX.5) but Ramus remains calm. As Taleus himself
flees, he is accosted by Gonzago and Retes, but tells them that he “is a Christian” (IX.14) which
they presume to mean a Catholic, and let him go. The two nobles demand gold from the
scholar, but Guise (together with Anjou and others) bursts in and immediately demands that
they “stab him” (IX.22).
This time, however, Guise indulges his victim in a little intellectual sparring before the kill.
Ramus asks what he has done to offend, and Guise responds by citing the scholar’s arguments
against Aristotelian logic and scholasticism230 (presumably Marlowe is bringing his own
education to bear here), rather than accusing him of heresy. Guise taunts Ramus by attempting
to disprove one of his theories on logic via the act of murdering him, the theory that a statement
cannot be deemed true simply on the basis of the authority of the person making that statement
(“Argumentum testimonii est inartificiale” - IX.34). Guise’s contrary example is the statement
that “Ramus shall die” (IX.35), which, based on his authority will become true. Even under
threat of death the scholar will not renounce his beliefs, insisting that he improved Aristotle’s
work (“I knew the Organon to be confus’d / And I reduc’d it into better form” - IX.45-6) albeit he
was not completely set against the Greek philosopher (“he that despiseth [Aristotle] can ne’er /
Be good in logic or philosophy” - IX.48-9). But Guise has grown impatient with the debate and
curtly orders his death. It is Anjou that obliges by stabbing Ramus.
Guise now takes stock of the massacre. He complains that some Huguenots have survived by
swimming in the Seine. Dumaine suggests a gory solution: that soldiers use “bows and darts to
shoot at them” from the bridges (IX.61). Guise is also unhappy that the tutors to Navarre and
Condé still live. Anjou again takes the initiative and knocks on their door (which we must
imagine to be close by) and finds the Huguenot leaders and the schoolmasters within.
Navarre questions Anjou about the massacre and his role in it, but the King’s brother brazenly
denies involvement: “I have done what I could to stay this broil” (IX.72), whilst offering a rather
lame alibi (“I rose but now” - IX.75). Once again Guise and his blood-thirsty mob charge in
shouting their murderous intentions. The Huguenot leaders’ response is once again somewhat
gutless: they quickly run off to “tell the king” (IX.78), leaving their tutors to die by Guise’s
“poniard’s point” (IX.79).
These last two deaths conclude Marlowe’s depiction of the main part of the St.Bartholomew’s
Day massacre, and the Duke of Guise now dispatches his lieutenants to extend the massacre
to the other cities of France.231 Five brief scenes have piled up six bodies and made clear the
vicious and ruthless intent of the murderous Guise, whilst Anjou (the future Henry III) also has
blood on his hands with the stabbing of Ramus.
229
Taleus here is presumably Omer Talon (Audomarus Talaeus), Ramus’ friend and collaborator, but he died in 1562, some 10 years
before Marlowe’s scene is set.
230
Guise accuses Ramus of scoffing at the Organon, Aristotle’s treatises on logic (IX.26), and of favouring dichotomy (IX.28), a form
of logic that Aristotle had rejected.
231
[Varamund] alludes to the atrocities which spread throughout the country, “... as at Orleance, Angiers, Viaron, Troys and Auxerre,
the like butcheries and slaughters vsed...” Marlowe now has Guise dispatch “Mountsorrell unto Rouen” (IX.84), although according to
[Varamund] the latter’s murder of Masson de Rivers portrayed in Scene VIII saw him travel to Angiers.
(v1.3) Page 80 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
5.3.3.8 Scene X - Anjou Accepts the Crown of Poland
Location: A Diplomatic Meeting in France.
Anjou:
My Lords of Poland I must needs confess,
The offer of your Prince Elector's, far
Beyond the reach of my deserts:
For Poland is as I have been inform’d,
A martial people, worthy such a King,
As hath sufficient counsel in himself,
To lighten doubts and frustrate subtle foes.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc X.1-7
The play now switches temporarily to the historical narrative, with a brief and functional scene
that comprises little more than a speech from Anjou, the French king’s younger brother, who
accepts the crown of Poland. Marlowe again appears to have switched the order of events
here, although for no obvious dramatic reason that can be seen in the extant text. In reality,232
Anjou was offered the Polish crown in the middle in the following year, 1573, and yet the
following scene in the play reverts to the Massacre in August 1572.
Anjou, who we have just seen murder Ramus in cold blood in the previous scene, makes a
diplomatic speech, modestly claiming the offer is “far / Beyond the reach of my deserts” (X.2-3).
He recognises that a Polish king must be a strong military leader, noting wars against two of
Poland’s enemies, the Muscovites to the east (Russia at that time was ruled by Ivan the
Terrible) and the Ottoman Empire of the Turks on their southern border. Marlowe has Anjou
insert an exit clause in his acceptance “that, if by death of Charles, the diadem / Of France be
cast on me, then with your leaves / I may retire me to my native home” (X.23-25). This may
have simply been for dramatic expediency, for there was no known source for such a covenant.
Alternatively it might just be considered circumstantial evidence of Marlowe originally plotting to
have Charles IX murdered, as is also hinted at by Catherine in the following scene (XI.43-44).
But the extant text does not follow through on this plot line, and it is perhaps unlikely that such
a story-line could have been forgotten or dropped by the reporter(s).
5.3.3.9 Scenes XI, XII - Coligny’s Body Disposed of, and a Massacre in the Wood
Location: The Streets of Paris; A Wood Outside Paris.
Q. Catherine:
For Catherine must have her will in France:
As I do live, so surely shall he die,
And Henry then shall wear the diadem.
And if he grudge or cross his Mother’s will,
I’ll disinherit him and all the rest;
For I’ll rule France, but they shall wear the crown,
And if they storm, I then may pull them down.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XI.38-44
The action returns to the aftermath of the Massacre, with the body of Admiral Coligny being
disposed of, and Guise worried about pockets of Huguenots that are apparently hiding in the
woods. That scene (XI) concludes with Catherine de Medici expressing concerns that her son,
King Charles IX, may be feeling guilty about the Massacre, and intimating that she might even
232
Anjou was in charge of the unsuccessful Siege of La Rochelle, which ended when he was offered the Polish Crown - see section
4.5.9 for a historical summary.
(v1.3) Page 81 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
have him killed if he shows any signs of disloyalty or weakness. There follows a brief scene
(XII) in which we see Guise carry out his threat to murder the Huguenots in the woods.
The first scene opens with some dark (and literal) gallows humour, as “two enter with the
Admiral’s body” (XI, opening S.D.) and debate how best to dispose of it. When Coligny was
murdered, Anjou proposed that the body be cut up, parts sent variously to the Pope and the
Cardinal of Lorraine, with the remaining corpse hung on a cross (V.42-7), and we are told by
[Varamund] that afterwards for “three days ... the [Admiral’s] deade bodie ... [was dragged]
through the streates”. Now these two Catholic henchmen argue that any means of disposal of
this “heretic” corpse runs a risk of contamination: burning it will only “infect the fire, and the fire
[infect] the air, and so we shall be poisoned” (XI.3-4); whilst throwing the body into the river will
just “corrupt the water, ... the fish, and ... ourselves when we eat [the fish]” (XI.7-8). They
eventually hang him on a tree, where Guise and Catherine view it with further disparagement
(“let’s walk aside, th’air’s not very sweet” - XI.16) before the former orders that they “throw him
in some ditch” (XI.18)233.
Guise is still concerned that “a hundred Huguenots and more / which in the woods do hold their
synagogue234” (XI.20-1) may somehow have escaped his bloody net, and vows to “put them to
the sword” (XI.22). Catherine de Medici concurs, as Marlowe further implicates her in the
massacre.
After the Guise has departed on his bloody mission, the Queen mother confides to his brother,
the Cardinal of Lorraine, her concerns about the King’s state of mind, particularly that he
“begins to lament / For the late night’s work which my Lord of Guise / Did make in Paris
amongst the Huguenots” (XI.31-33). The Cardinal is worried that this guilt is leading the King to
sympathise with Navarre, and Catherine shows a quite Machiavellian ruthlessness by
predicting that “surely shall he die, ... if he grudge or cross his mother’s will” (XI.39-41). She
leaves nobody in any doubt as to who is the real power behind the throne: “For I’ll rule France,
but they shall wear the crown, / And if they storm, I then may pull them down” (XI.43-4).
Although Charles IX is not long for this world, Marlowe does not follow through on this veiled
threat of filicide.
There follows a brief scene (XII) in which we see the Duke of Guise carry out his threat from the
previous scene, to hunt out and murder Huguenots hiding out in the woods. Again the Duke
shows no mercy in his apparent religious zeal. One protestant tries to plead his case, but Guise
is not interested: “No villain, that tongue of thine, / That hath blasphemed the holy Church of
Rome, / Shall drive no plaints into the Guise’s ears, / To make the justice of my heart relent”
(XII.3-6). This is the final gory action from the Massacre, but there is also another clue to the
reported nature of the text, as the phrase used here by the Guise (“Tue, tue, tue! Let none
escape” - XII.7) is an exact repetition of that assigned to him in Scene VI.
233
Although there is a possible dramatic incongruity here with Anjou’s earlier suggestion regarding what to do with the Admiral’s
body in Scene V, the return to the subject of the corpse is once again following [Varamund]’s later narrative: “Now to returne to Paris,
the Admirals body being hanged vp by the heeles vpon the common gallows of Paris, as is aforesayde, the Parisians went thither by
heapes to see it. And the Queene mother to feede hir eyes with that spectacle, had a mynde also to goe thither, and she caryed with hir
the King and both hir other sonnes.” Marlowe, of course, has Guise, the villain of the piece, accompany her.
234
The use of the term “synagogue” is an interesting one for a modern audience, as was noted by attendees at the Globe Read Not
Dead seminar in September 2011. In Marlowe’s day, perhaps the term is more general and implies simply a gathering of heretics? Peter
Farey also brought to my attention the OED definition: †4. gen. An assembly: chiefly as a literalism of biblical translation.
(v1.3) Page 82 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
5.3.3.10
The Marlowe Society
Scene XIII - The Death of King Charles IX
Location: The French Court in Paris.
Q. Catherine:
What art thou dead, sweet son? Speak to thy Mother.
O no, his soul is fled from out his breast,
And he nor hears, nor sees us what we do.
My Lords, what resteth now for to be done?
But that we presently despatch ambassadors
To Poland, to call Henry back again,
To wear his brothers crown and dignity.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XIII.16-22
With the Massacre complete, events take a further turn in favour of the Catholics as the guiltridden King Charles IX dies. His mother shows little emotion, and in fact can hardly wait to
whisk his younger brother Anjou back from Poland to inherit the French crown as Henry III.
Navarre meanwhile immediately recognises the danger this represents for him, and makes
plans to escape the French court.
Marlowe has once again rearranged the chronology of real-life events for his own dramatic
continuity. Charles’ steady physical and mental decline lasted for nearly two years after the
Massacre until he died at the end of May 1574.235 Navarre did not flee Paris until February
1576, a whole year after Anjou was crowned as Henry III at Rheims, an event not dramatised
by Marlowe until the following scene.
The scene opens with King Charles in some physical discomfort, as “a griping pain hath seiz’d
upon my heart; a sudden pang, the messenger of death” (XIII.2-3). Despite reassurance from
Navarre, Charles knows he is not long for this world. Whilst admitting he has “deserved a
scourge” (XII.9) for his failure to stop the Massacre, he can only hope his “nearest friends”
(XIII.12) have not been responsible for his own death. His symptoms (“my sight begins to fail, /
My sinews shrink, my brain turns upside down, / My heart doth break, I faint and die” - XIII.1315) may hint at poison, for they are very similar to those displayed by the old Queen of Navarre
who perished by a poisoned glove (“My brain-pan breaks; / My heart doth faint; I die” - III.1920). Marlowe’s source [Varamund] did suggest Charles was poisoned,236 although the similarity
in symptoms may just be down to the unreliable and repetitive nature of the reported text.
Marlowe had set Catherine de Medici up as prime suspect in an earlier scene, when she raged
against Charles’ feelings of guilt over the Massacre and his collusion with Navarre, predicting
“so surely shall he die, / And Henry then shall wear the diadem” (XI.39-40). There is no explicit
evidence in this scene that Catherine is directly responsible, although a later comment would
certainly provide key evidence for the prosecution: “I’ll despatch [Henry III] with his brother
presently” (XIV.63).
Catherine is certainly not racked with grief. She offers fairly bland platitudes when Charles
initially announces he is not well (“O say not so, thou kill’st thy mother’s heart” - XIII.4) and after
confirming he is dead (“O no, his soul is fled from out his breast / And he nor hears nor sees us
what we do” - XIII.17-18) her thoughts turn immediately in the very next lines to arranging for
the return of Anjou from Poland: “My Lords, what resteth now for to be done? / But that we
presently despatch ambassadors / To Poland, to call Henry back again, / To wear his brother’s
crown and dignity” (XIII.19-22). Unfortunately we can never be quite sure that such a speedy
235
See section 4.5.10 for a historical summary of Charles’ death, whilst section 4.5.11 covers Navarre leaving Paris.
236
[Oliver] p.125. Charles’ increasing ill-health over an extended period and severe symptoms that included coughing up blood and
hemorrhages implies a condition such as tuberculosis rather than foul play.
(v1.3) Page 83 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
turn of face might not be caused by original dialogue cut from, or forgotten in, the extant
reported text, but it certainly seems quite likely that Marlowe is painting Catherine as a ruthless
and unfeeling mother, a Machiavellian plotter whose first thought is how the situation can be
turned to her advantage. The playwright, as is often his wont, may even have purposely left the
cause of the King’s death deliberately ambiguous.
Navarre is left with his follower Pleshé to ponder the increased danger he finds himself in
following this dramatic and unfavourable turn of events. In reality he was effectively held
captive in Paris for three and a half years following the Massacre. In the play, Navarre is under
no illusion where the new King’s sympathies lie. Anjou it was that instigated the murder of the
Huguenot tutors, with Navarre’s suspicions already aroused that he was “one that made this
massacre” (IX.74). Now the man, who the audience have also watched kill Peter Ramus in cold
blood, is to ascend to the French throne and surely strengthen the Guise faction at Court even
further. It is clear to Navarre that he must “steal from France and hie me to my home, / For
here’s no safety in the realm for me” (XIII.32-3). There he plans to “muster up an army secretly,
/ For fear that Guise join'd with the King of Spain” (XIII.36-7). Once again Navarre places his
faith in a Protestant God “that always doth defend the right, / Will show his mercy and preserve
us still” (XII.40-1).
5.3.3.11
Scene XIV - The Coronation of Henry III
Location: Rheims Cathedral
Q. Catherine:
And if he do deny what I do say,
I’ll dispatch him with his brother presently,
And then shall Monsieur wear the diadem.
Tush, all shall die unless I have my will:
For while she lives Catherine will be Queen.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XIV.62-6
Anjou has returned from Poland and this scene shows him crowned as King Henry III of
France.237 His mother Catherine makes a great show of welcoming him, but behind his back
she believes that the new King’s proclivity for mignons, or male favourites, will allow her to
continue to be the real power behind the throne, as she was with his elder brother Charles.
Meanwhile, we learn that Guise is raising an army with which to attack Navarre, and Catherine
is confident that she can bring her influence to bear such that her son will support this venture.
Henry III enters the stage (already crowned) to the sound of “trumpets within” and cries of “Vive
le roi!” from the assembled crowd. Catherine makes a speech welcoming her son to the throne
of France and highlighting the benefits of his new position: “a country void of fears / A warlike
people to maintain thy right, / A watchful senate for ordaining laws” (XIV.4-6), but perhaps most
significantly from her perspective “A loving mother to preserve thy state” (XIV.7)!
The new king initially responds with a formal expression of hope that his “deeds may well
deserve your loves” (XIV.13), but soon his attention turns to his mignons,238 assuring them that
“Henry’s heart will ... both harbour love and majesty” (XIV.16-17) and that they are
“Removeless from the favours of your king” (XIV.22). Henry assures one of those mignons
Mugeroun that “we will be friends, / And fellows too, whatever storms arise” (XIV.27-28), a vow
that the latter immediately exploits to ask the king’s permission to punish a cutpurse for the
237
Anjou took his time returning from Poland, touring Italy before returning to France in September 1574 - [Holt] p.103. His
coronation took place at Rheims Notre-Dame Cathedral on 13th February 1575.
238
For a summary of the leading mignons and contemporary opinion of them, see section 4.5.14.
(v1.3) Page 84 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
“cutting of the gold buttons off [Mugeroun’s] cloak” (SD at XIV.30.1-2).239 Before Henry can
answer, Mugeroun has cut off the thief’s ear, and with dark humour demands “Come, sir, give
me my buttons, and here’s your ear” (XIV.33). Guise orders the cutpurse to be taken away, but
Henry intervenes, standing “bail” for the thief, and sending him on his way with an almost lighthearted warning to “work no more / Till this our coronation-day be past” (XIV.36-37). This may
just be the carefree clemency of a newly crowned king, or Marlowe may be giving the first hint
at a more humane Henry, who here is perhaps establishing his authority in a small way by
over-ruling Guise (who was very much in charge during the Massacre escapades that involved
Anjou).
Henry calls for the coronation celebrations to begin, and all depart “to feast / And spend some
days in barriers,240 tourney, tilt, / And like disports, such as do fit the court” (XIV.39-41). All
except Catherine and the Cardinal of Lorraine that is, the latter again cast by Marlowe as the
Queen Mother’s confidant, a dramatic vehicle for confiding her plotting to the audience. The
mind of her son, she notes, “runs on his minions, / And all his heaven is to delight himself”
(XIV.45-6). But such hedonism will only serve her designs on effective power, that “Guise and
we may now provide / To plant ourselves with such authority / As not a man may live without
our leaves” (XIV.48-50), such that the “Catholic faith of Rome / [shall] Flourish in France, and
none deny the same” (XIV.51-2).
The Cardinal reveals that “Guise hath gather’d a power of men” (XIV.54) with which he secretly
means to attack “the house of Bourbon”, justifying the fears that Navarre voiced in the previous
scene. He urges Catherine to lobby the king to support this act of war “for his country’s good /
And common profit of religion” (XIV.58-9). They might expect Henry’s support after his active
role in the Massacre, but Catherine is anyway supremely confident of her personal power.
Henry is dispensable (“if he do deny what I do say, / I’ll despatch him with his brother presently,
/ And then shall Monsieur [her youngest son] wear the diadem” - XIV.62-4) and believes herself
all powerful (“Tush, all shall die unless I have my will. / For, while she lives, Catherine will be
Queen” - XIV.65-6).
5.3.3.12
Scene XV - Guise Discovers His Wife’s Infidelity
Location: The Duchess of Guise’s Chamber.
Guise:
Thou trothless and unjust, what lines are these?
Am I grown old, or is thy lust grown young,
Or hath my love been so obscur’d in thee,
That others need to comment on my text?
Is all my love forgot which held thee dear?
Ay, dearer then the apple of mine eye?
Is Guise’s glory but a cloudy mist,
In sight and judgement of thy lustful eye?
Mort dieu, were not the fruit within thy womb,
On whose increase I set some longing hope:
This wrathful hand should strike thee to the heart!
Hence strumpet, hide thy head for shame,
And fly my presence if thou look'st to live.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XV.23-35
239
240
There is no known source for this brief episode involving the cutpurse.
Martial combat by two combatants on foot with short swords and pikes.
(v1.3) Page 85 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
The play moves suddenly from the political arena to more domestic matters. The Duchess of
Guise is writing to her lover, Mugeroun,241 when her husband bursts in and discovers her
infidelity. Guise dismisses his wife angrily, and vows revenge against her lover, one of Henry’s
mignons - a threat that therefore begins to earn the King’s enmity.
The Duchess sends her maid off for pen and paper so that she can write to her “dearest Lord. /
Sweet Mugeroun, ‘tis he that hath my heart” (XV.2-3). But as she writes, her husband enters
and asks who she is writing to. She cunningly implies she is writing to a female (“one, my Lord,
as when she reads my lines / Will laugh, I fear me” - XV.15-16). But Guise, perhaps already
suspicious, persists and then snatches the letter to read her “secrets that no man must know”
(XV.21).
The Guise embarks on an increasingly angry soliloquy. “Am I grown old, or is thy lust grown
young,” he asks, before alluding to himself as a text that is substandard, such that his wife
requires another to address its deficiencies. He works himself into a lather of injured pride,
before violently demanding she leave: “Hence, strumpet, hide thy head for shame / And fly my
presence if thou look’st to live!” (XV.33-34). After the Duchess has fled, Guise vows revenge on
Mugeroun: “But villain he to whom these lines should go / Shall buy her love even with his
dearest blood” (XV.39-40).
5.3.3.13
Scene XVI - Navarre Learns of the French Army’s Advance
Location: The Court of Navarre.
Navarre:
I would the Guise in his stead might have come,
But he doth lurk within his drowsy couch,
And makes his footstool on security:
So he be safe he cares not what becomes,
Of King or Country, no not for them both.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XVI.39-43
This scene is again a brief one in the extant text. It does not add a great deal to the plot, other
than to remind the audience that, as he planned at the end of Scene XIII, Navarre has made his
escape from France242 and, now back in Navarre, learns that the French Army organised by
Guise is on its way.
The first half of the scene provides Navarre with a platform to reiterate to his followers (Pleshé
and Bartus) the heart-felt righteousness of his protestant cause, and to once again declaim
against the “the proud disturbers of the faith - I mean the Guise, the Pope and the King of
Spain” (XVI.3-4). There are again hints at the reported nature of the text, with some awkward
phraseology in places (XVI.7-9 for example), and the seeming corruption of Navarre’s second
brief speech on “the power of vengeance [that] now encamps itself / Upon the haughty
mountains of my breast” (XVI.20-21): in particular, the repetition of “colour(s)” and
“vengeance”/”revenge”/”revenge”).
The stated desire for an opportunity at revenge is made imminently tangible by the arrival of a
messenger, who brings news that “a mighty army comes from France with speed, / Which are
already muster’d in the land / And means to meet Your Highness in the field” (XVI.28-30).
Navarre is ready for the fight, but expresses his disappointment that it is the Duke of Joyeux
241
In reality, it was Marquis de Saint Mégrin that the Duchess of Guise (Catherine of Cleves, 1548-1633) had an affair with, and who
was allegedly murdered by the Guise’s brothers in 1581. Maugiron (Marlowe’s Mugeroun) died in the “Duel of the Mignons” in April
1578 - see section 4.5.14 for a historical summary of Henry III’s mignons.
242
Marlowe has greatly condensed real time here. Navarre escaped France in February 1576, and the battle anticipated here took place
at Coutras in October 1587. In between the Fifth and Sixth wars were waged.
(v1.3) Page 86 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
(one of Henry’s mignons) who is leading the French forces rather than Guise, who he accuses
of cowardice, “lurk[ing] within his drowsy couch / And makes his footstool of security” (XVI.4041).
5.3.3.14
Scene XVII - Henry Baits the Cuckolded Guise
Location: The French Court.
Guise:
How now my Lord? Faith this is more than need,
Am I to be thus jested at and scorn’d?
’Tis more than kingly or imperious.
And sure if all the proudest kings beside
In Christendom, should bear me such derision,
They should know how I scorn’d them and their mocks.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XVII.15-20
With an apparent small step back in time,243 we now find King Henry III appointing his mignon
Joyeux to lead the army that will march against Navarre. After dispatching his new general, the
king is in mischievous mood, baiting the Duke of Guise about being cuckolded by another of his
mignons, Mugeroun.
Henry is reluctant to let Joyeux put himself in such a dangerous postion, since “my love to thee
can hardly suffer / Regarding still the danger of thy life” (XVII.5-6). But as Joyeux has requested
the commission, Henry agrees. After Guise too has bid the general farewell, the king perhaps
upset by the departure of his friend, turns somewhat spitefully on the Duke and jokes that he
and his wife “Do both salute our lovely minions” (XVII.11), meaning that Guise has just bid
farewell to Joyeux, whilst his wife has “salute[d]” her lover Mugeroun. Henry makes clear the
meaning of his innuendo by “mak[ing] horns” to indicate a cuckold, whilst also referring to “the
letter ... / Which your wife writ to my dear minion, / and her chosen friend” (XVII.12-14).244
Guise is predictably furious at being humiliated in front of the court in such unregal fashion: “Am
I to be thus jested at and scorn’d? / ’Tis more than kingly or imperious” (XVII.16-17). He
responds in kind by mocking the King’s mignons: “I love your Minions? Dote on them yourself! /
I know none else but holds them in disgrace” (XVII.21-22). Enraged, he goes on to repeat the
threat made in his wife’s chamber that he will kill Mugeroun in revenge (“That villain for whom I
bear this deep disgrace, ... / Shall buy that strumpet’s favour with his blood” - XVII.24-26) and
departs with an oath in French, “Par la mort dieu, il mourra!” (XVII.28).245
Epernoun is worried for his friend, noting that Guise’s “oaths are seldom spent in vain”
(XVII.31). No sooner has Guise stormed out, than Mugeroun enters, but fortunately has missed
the incensed Duke.246 Henry explains why the Duke is out for revenge,247 but Mugeroun brashly
indicates that he is not scared, and will “live till [Guise] be dead” (XVII.37). What’s more, he
wants to have it out with the Duke, and sets off to find and confront him. Henry, conscious that
243
Navarre has already heard rumoured news of Joyeux’s appointment in the previous scene, at which point the French army were
reported to be already “com[ing] from France with speed”. We might expect Joyeux to have been appointed before the army began to
march and to travel with them. There is nothing to stop Marlowe flitting back in time for dramatic reasons to show the appointment, for
example to provide the link between the two mignons Joyeux and Mugernoun being “salute[d]” by Guise (XVII.11). But there are other
hints at a badly reported text in this scene that makes us suspicious.
244
Again there is a suspicion that action has been cut. [Oliver] notes (p.137) that it is feasible that “the King has somehow heard of the
letter intercepted by Guise”, perhaps from Mugeroun, but equally we might imagine a little more dramatic continuity in the full original
text.
245
246
247
Literally, “By the death of God, he shall die”.
Perhaps they exit and enter by separate doors?
So in fact Henry cannot have learned about the letter from Mugeroun.
(v1.3) Page 87 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
it was his jesting that inflamed Guise, is now worried, and nervously implores Epernoun, “Let’s
go seek the Duke and make them friends” (XVII.45).
5.3.3.15
Scene XVIII - Navarre Hails his Victory in Battle
Location: The Battlefield at Coutras.
Navarre:
But God we know will always put them down,
That lift themselves against the perfect truth,
Which I’ll maintain as long as life doth last.
And with the Queen of England join my force,
To beat the papal Monarch from our lands,
And keep those relics from our countries’ coasts.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XVIII.12-17
This very short scene finds Navarre victorious in battle against the King of France’s army, an
army raised by Guise but led by the Duke of Joyeux. Indeed the scene starts with the news that
“The Duke Joyeux [is] slain” (XVIII.0.1 SD), signalling the Huguenot victory.248
Victory once again offers Navarre the chance to offer up some protestant platitudes, reinforcing
his belief that God is on his side: “Thus God, we see, doth ever guide the right, / To make his
glory great upon the earth” (XVIII.3-4). Bartus hopes that this defeat may persuade Henry III to
pursue a peaceful strategy, but Navarre is more bullish, hoping that the victory may act as a
springboard, “And with the Queen of England join my force, / To beat the papal Monarch from
our lands” (XVII.15-16). Ironically King Henry III will express similar sentiments to Navarre at
the end of the play, just after he has been stabbed.
5.3.3.16
Scene XIX - Mugeroun is Shot; Guise’s Military Threat
Location: Paris.
Guise:
Being animated by religious zeal,
I mean to muster all the power I can,
To overthrow those factious Puritans;
And know, the Pope will sell his triple crown,
I, and the catholic Philip King of Spain,
Ere I shall want, will cause his Indians,
To rip the golden bowels of America.
Navarre that cloaks them underneath his wings,
Shall feel the house of Lorraine is his foe.
Your highness need not fear mine armies force,
’Tis for your safety and your enemies wrack.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XIX.44-54
This scene is divided into two distinct parts. First Mugeroun is murdered249 by a soldier hired by
the Duke of Guise to revenge the mignon’s affair with his wife.250 The second part involves a
248
As noted above, the battle referred to by Marlowe is the Battle of Coutras which took place on 20th October 1587. Coutras is about
30km north-east of Bordeaux in the south-west of France. Joyeux was captured on the battlefield and shot by Huguenots in revenge for
a massacre at Poitou. Section 4.5.16 summarises the Eighth War, including Coutras.
249
As noted against scene XV, Marquis de Saint Mégrin who had an affair with the Duchess of Guise was allegedly murdered by the
Guise’s brothers in 1581. See section 4.5.14 for a historical summary of Henry III’s mignons
250
The section of the play text portraying the soldier killing Mugeroun is of course of especial interest due to the extant ‘Collier Leaf’,
which (if genuine) shows the far fuller and much superior version of the text that Marlowe originally wrote. See section 2.3.
(v1.3) Page 88 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
relatively lengthy (for this extant reported text, at least) political negotiation in which Henry III
tries to assert his authority and force Guise to disband his personal armies by which the King
feels threatened. Despite the Duke’s apparent acquiescence, the King distrusts his intentions
and somewhat desperately hatches a plot to escape Paris but murder Guise.
Guise has once again hired an assassin to do his dirty work for him, as with Marlowe’s
portrayal of the Joan of Navarre poisoning and the initial shooting of Coligny. A soldier armed
with a musket lies in wait for Mugeroun, railing against the mignon’s cuckolding of Guise as he
does so. He uses some less than subtle sexual innuendo251 to argue the immorality of
Mugeroun’s affair with the Duchess and justify his imminent act of murder “to keep you out” of
her (XIX.10). Mugeroun appears and the soldier “shoots at him and kills him” (XIX.12.1 SD),
whereupon Guise pays him off. As well as avenging his wife’s lover, Guise also sees this as
some revenge against Henry, who had earlier baited him as a cuckold. He refers to Mugeroun
as “the King’s delight, and Guise’s scorn” (XIX.14) and lays down a challenge to “Revenge it,
Henry, as thou list or dare; / I did it only in despite of thee” (XIX.15-16). Although Guise has no
political motivation to fight against the King (they are both catholic, and carried out the
massacre together), Marlowe has created an enmity fuelled by the fallout from this more
domestic matter.
No sooner has Guise laid down this challenge, than the king and another of his mignons
Epernoun arrive to take issue with the Guise for “gather[ing] a power of men” (XIX.18).252 The
Duke explains that he maintains an army “for the Gospel sake” (XIX.22). He is “an enemy of the
Bourbonites” (i.e. Navarre and the Huguenots - XIX.32). “Being more animated by religious
zeal, / I mean to muster all the power I can / To overthrow those sectious Puritans” (XIX.44-46).
“You Highness needs not fear mine army’s force: / ’Tis for your safety, and your enemies’
wrack” (XIX.53-54).
Epernoun voices the royal suspicions, that Guise has raised an army “for the Pope’s sake, and
thine own benefit” (XIX.23), and that it is being paid for by “The Pope and King of Spain [who]
are thy good friends” (XIX.39). The exchange quickly becomes bad tempered: Epernoun
“challenges [Guise] for treason in the cause” (XIX.26), to which the Duke responds with a
characteristic threat of violence: “were not His Highness here, / Thou shouldst perceive the
Duke of Guise is moved” (XIX.27-28). Henry tries to maintain an aura of authority: “Be patient
Guise, ... / Lest thou perceive the King of France be mov’d” (XIX.29-30).
But soon the king loses patience, and somewhat desperately resorts to sarcasm: “Guise, wear
our crown, and be thou King of France, / And as Dictator make or war or peace, / Whilst I cry
placet 253 like a Senator” (XIX.55-57). He issues a stark order to Guise: “Dismiss thy camp or
else by our Edict, / Be thou proclaimed a traitor throughout France” (XIX.59-60). The Duke
switches to a policy of compliance, obsequiously indicating he will comply: “My Lord, in token of
my true humility, / And simple meaning to your Majesty, / I kiss Your Grace’s hand, and take my
leave, / Intending to dislodge my camp with speed” (XIX.62-65). But the audience is left in no
doubt as to his real intentions via an aside in which decides he “must dissemble” (XIX.61).
Epernoun is not fooled though, and after the Duke has departed tells the King about Guise’s
popularity and effective control of the capital, “with what a pomp he enter’d Paris / And how the
Citizens with gifts and shows / Did entertain him / And promised to be at his command”
251
“Us[ing] a counterfeit key to [Guise’s] privy-chamber door”, “put[ting] in that which displease [Guise]”, “set[ting] up your standing
where you should not”, and “till[ing] the ground that [Guise] himself should occupy” (XIX.2-7).
252
Indeed the relationship between Henry and Guise began to fall apart after the Battle of Coutras late in 1587, as the King passed
Joyeuse’s title to Epernoun rather than Guise, and the King’s attempt to forcibly take control of the Guise stronghold that was Paris
failed - see section 4.5.16.
253
A Latin phrase meaning “It pleases (me)”. [Oliver] notes that it was “a form of assent, when voting in an assembly, that was
perhaps known to Marlowe through University practice also” - p.143.
(v1.3) Page 89 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
(XIX.67-71). Henry is becoming more fearful that the Guise “means treason ... to our state”
(XIX.76), paranoid that his “council ... are false” (XIX.80).254 He therefore formally discharges
his council, and vows to “Epernoun, I will be rul’d by thee” (XIX.81). Marlowe has Epernoun
suggest that the Guise be murdered, advising that “it would be good the Guise were made
away, / And so to quite Your Grace of all suspect” (XIX.83-84). The King is flustered (“though I
seem mild and calm, / Think not but I am tragical within” XIX.88-89) but decides to secretly
escape Paris in fear of his life, and head to the royal palace at Blois. He has not given up, but
has settled on the desperate measure of getting rid of the Duke, “as I live, so sure the Guise
shall die!” (XIX.94).
5.3.3.17
Scene XX - Navarre Conceives a Pact with Henry
Location: The Court of Navarre.
Navarre:
That wicked Guise, I fear me much will be
The ruin of that famous realm of France,
For his aspiring thoughts aim at the crown,
He takes his vantage on religion,
To plant the Pope and popelings in the realm
And bind it wholly to the see of Rome.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XX.20-25
Attention switches back to Navarre, where news has arrived that Guise has taken arms against
the King of France. The Huguenot leaders conceive the idea of making a pact with Henry III,
and using a joint military force to defeat the Catholic League once and for all.
Clearly Navarre has his spies or informers in France, for they have “advertised ... / that the
Guise hath taken against the King / And that Paris is revolted from His Grace” (XX.1-3).255
Bartus immediately sees an opportunity for Navarre to exploit this breakdown in relations
between the king and Guise, by “offering [Henry] aid against his enemies, / Which cannot but
be thankfully received” (XIX.6-7). Navarre seizes eagerly on this idea, dispatching Bartus
immediately to open negotiations with the French king, and charging Pleshé to “go muster up
our men with speed / And let them march away to France amain” (XX.15-16).
It only remains for Navarre to launch into a brief soliloquy railing against the Machiavellian
ambitions of the Guise, “For his aspiring thoughts aim at the crown, / He takes his vantage on
Religion, / To plant the Pope and popelings in the realm, / And bind it wholly to the See of
Rome” (XX.22-25). Predictably, he again calls upon his God to help deliver a righteous
Protestant victory, one in which “We'll beat [Guise] back, and drive him to his death” (XX.28).
5.3.3.18
Scene XXI - The Murder of the Guise
Location: A chamber in the Royal Chateau at Blois.
King Henry:
Then come proud Guise and here disgorge thy breast,
Surcharg’d with surfeit of ambitious thoughts;
Breathe out that life wherein my death was hid,
And end thy endless treasons with thy death.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XXI.24-27
254
After the humiliating Edict of Union forced upon him by his mother, Henry III tried to organise a reprisal from Blois in September
1588, but the majority of the Estates-General supported the Catholic League - see section 4.5.17.
255
See ‘The Day of the Barricades’ and the summary in section 4.5.16.
(v1.3) Page 90 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Henry now executes the plot hatched in Paris with Epernoun. The Duke of Guise attends the
royal court at Blois, but three assassins hired by the King stab the Guise to death.256 To
minimise the risk of revenge, Henry shows the body to the Duke’s son who is then imprisoned,
and also instigates the murder of the Duke’s brothers. Convinced of his mother’s complicity with
the Guise faction, Henry only informs her after the act. Catherine is devastated at the death of
“Sweet Guise”.
The Duke of Guise has somehow been lured to the royal palace at Blois. At the behest of the
King, the Captain of the Guard organises three paid murderers to hide in a chamber and wait
for the Duke. The Captain obtains assurances that the assassins are “resolutely bent, / Hating
the life and honour of the Guise” (XXI.1-2). All three express their resolution, but there are
apparently still fears in the royal camp that the influence and power of the Guise might yet deter
the would-be assassins, for the King immediately asks for similar assurances from the Captain
when he enters to check on preparations: “But are they resolute and armed to kill?” (XXI.21).257
The King can hardly contain himself at the prospect of this imminent bloody resolution to all his
problems. “Come Guise and see thy traitorous guile outreach’d, / And perish in the pit thou
mad'st for me,” (XXI.33-34) is his aside when the Duke arrives “crav[ing] access unto Your
Highness” (XXI.31-32). Henry keeps his cool when goaded by Guise that “Your Majesty was
scarcely pleas’d, / That in the Court I bear so great a train” (XXI.38-39), assuring the Duke that
he could never be “suspicious of my dearest friends” (XXI.43).
Henry makes a swift exit, leaving the Duke suspicious by the behaviour around him at Blois:
“sues the King for favour to the Guise, / And all his Minions stoop when I command” (XXI.4849). He is moved to be on his guard, but cannot help remain supremely confident in his own
power to overcome any threat: “As ancient Romans over their captive lords, / So will I triumph
over this wanton King” (XXI.52-53). He is unfazed when the third assassin emerges nervously
from his hiding place and admitting that “I am one of them that is set to murder you” (XXI.6162). Two further assassins cannot dent his self-belief, for “Tut, they are peasants, I am Duke of
Guise; / And princes with their looks engender fear” (XXI.69-70). But the murderers maintain
their resolve as promised, and quickly stab the Guise.
Dying, Guise asks leave to speak, and is recommended to “pray to God, and ask forgiveness of
the King” (XXI.76) but his arrogant pride won’t allow that. He has “ne’er offended [God], / Nor
will I ask forgiveness of the King” (XXI.77-78), but is most aggrieved “To die by Peasants, what
a grief is this” (XXI.81). He calls on the Pope and the King of Spain to exact revenge, before
comparing himself once more to Julius Caesar with his dying breath: “Thus Caesar did go forth,
and thus he dies” (XXI.87).258
Henry is beside himself with a mixture of elation and relief, and directs a torrent of angry
righteousness at the dead Guise who is “surcharg’d with guilt of thousand massacres” (XXI.93),
“the traitor that hath spent my gold, / In making foreign wars and cruel broils” (XXI.99-100), and
whose corpse is a “sweet sight [that] is physic to my soul!” (XXI.91). Henry feels empowered
again, exclaiming “I ne’er was King of France until this hour” (XXI.98),259 and subsequently
concludes his catalogue of Guise-inspired woe with the rather over-dramatic claim that “Ne’er
was there King of France so yoked as I” (XXI.115).
Marlowe adds a particularly English (and perhaps a personal) angle to this list of Henry’s beefs,
accusing the Guise of “draw[ing] a sort of English priests / From Douai to the seminary at
256
257
258
259
The Duke of Guise was murdered at Blois on 23 December 1588 - see section 4.5.17.
The exact repetition of “Hating the life and honour of the Guise?” (XXI.2 and XXI.22) is surely down to a flaw in the reported text.
Not a direct quote, perhaps poorly remembered by the reporter.
In fact, a quote attributed to the real Henry that Marlowe must have been aware of, and cited by many historians.
(v1.3) Page 91 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Rheims, / To hatch forth treason ‘gainst their natural Queen? / Did he not cause the King of
Spain’s huge fleet, / To threaten England and to menace me?” (XXI.101-105). The point about
the seminaries is historically accurate,260 but might not have been too much of a grievance to
the Catholic Henry. Marlowe, on the other hand, may well have spent some time at the
seminary in Rheims as an English undercover agent a few years earlier. The evidence is
contained in a letter that the privy council were moved to write to Cambridge University
regarding allegations that the student had spent time in Rheims, assuring the University
authorities of Marlowe’s “faithful dealing”, and that “he had done Her Majesty good service”.261
Despite Henry’s euphoria, he still acts quickly and decisively to cement his advantage and
ensure that the murder does not trigger reprisals by the Guise faction. The King ruthlessly
shows Guise’s son262 his father’s dead body as a threat that “I ... will slay thee too, [if] thou
prove such a traitor” (XXI.119-120), before having the boy imprisoned. Orders are given to kill
the Guise’s brothers, with the Captain of the Guard dispatched to Orleans to arrange the death
of the Duke Dumaine,263 and the three murderers are sent to “strangle the Cardinal”
(XXI.130).264
At this point Catherine, enters dramatically, causing Epernoun to observe “see where she
comes, as if she droop’d / To hear these news” (XXI.133-4). Henry is still too elated to worry
about his mother, and boldly asks her “how like you this device of mine? / I slew the Guise,
because I would be King” (XXI.136-7); beforehand Guise “was King and countermanded me”
(XXI.140). But Catherine is distraught, and castigates her son whom she wishes she had
murdered at birth, for now he has proven “Traitor to God, and to the realm of France” (XXI.147).
Henry is unbowed, rejoicing that “The Guise is slain” (XXI.149), and “now I to arms” (XXI.150)
against the Catholic League. Henry leaves to “let her grieve her heart out if she will” (XXI.151),
taking Epernoun with him.
Catherine is left alone to amplify her true feelings and make clear to the audience that her
loyalties were firmly with “Sweet Guise” (XXI.153) even above her own son. “To whom shall I
bewray my secrets now, / Or who will help to build Religion?” (XXI.154-5) she complains. Her
life’s work is at risk in a future in which “The Protestants will glory”, “Wicked Navarre will get the
crown of France”, and “all goes to wrack” (XXI.156-8). With the Guise dead, “sorrow seize upon
my toiling soul” such that “I will not live” (XXI.160-1).265
5.3.3.19
Scene XXII - The Murder of the Cardinal of Guise
Location: The Royal Chateau at Blois.
Cardinal:
Yet lives my brother Duke Dumaine, and many more,
To revenge our deaths upon that cursed King,
Upon whose heart may all the furies gripe,
And with their paws drench his black soul in hell.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XXII.8-11
260
[Oliver] notes: “When certain students were expelled from the seminary at Douai as a political measure, they did go to Rheims,
under the patronage of Guise” - p.151-2.
261
PRO Privy Council Registers PC2/14/381.
262
The “boy” which Marlowe’s Henry intimidates was in fact the 17 year old eldest son, Charles de Lorraine Guise (1571-1640), who
became 4th Duke of Guise on his father’s death, but was imprisoned until 1591.
263
The Duke of Mayenne was not killed at this time, as we see in Scene XXIII. He went on to lead the fight against Henry III and
Navarre to the bitter end, dying aged 57 in 1611. Paul Kocher points out that Mayenne was probably in Lyons at this time, and that
perhaps Marlowe misread his source as regards Orleans - [Kocher-Pamphlets].
264
Louis II, Cardinal of Guise, also at Blois, was murdered the following day, 24 December 1588.
265
Indeed, as Marlowe knew, Catherine died within a fortnight of Guise’s murder on 5 January 1589 - see section 4.5.18. L'Estoile
claimed that "those close to her believed that her life had been shortened by displeasure over her son's deed." - [L’Estoile-Journal]
(v1.3) Page 92 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Following the King’s command in the previous scene, the murderers who have just killed Guise,
now murder his brother the Cardinal.266 Curiously, there are now just two murderers, who
respond with some darkly amusing retorts as the Cardinal pleads for his life. There are no
obvious cast-doubling restrictions in the extant text that would necessitate one less murderer;
perhaps the nervous timidity already exhibited by the third murderer has given him cold feet!
The scene opens with the murderers “dragging in the Cardinal” (XXII.0.1 SD), who desperately
cites his ecclesiastical office as reason why he should be spared. “Wert thou the Pope, thou
mightst not ‘scape from us” (XXII.2) replies the first murderer. Aghast, the Cardinal cannot
believe they will “[de]file your hands with churchmen’s blood?” (XXII.3). No blood will be shed,
the second murderer assures him, for they intend to strangle him (just as King Henry explicitly
ordered back at XXI.130).
The Cardinal is resigned to his grim fate, but holds out hope that his brother Dumaine and the
rest of the Catholic League will exact revenge on “that cursed King, / Upon whose heart may all
the furies gripe, / And with their paws drench his black soul in hell” (XXI.9-11). The two
murderers set to their task and strangle the Cardinal, the first commenting blackly that “he is
hard hearted, therefore pull with violence” (XXII.13).
5.3.3.20
Scene XXIII - The Friar Offers His Services to Dumaine
Location: Orleans (according to Marlowe’s text).
Dumaine:
Sweet Duke of Guise our prop to lean upon,
Now thou art dead, here is no stay for us.
I am thy brother, and I’ll revenge thy death,
And root Valois's line from forth of France,
And beat proud Bourbon to his native home,
That basely seeks to join with such a King,
Whose murderous thoughts will be his overthrow.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XXIII.4-10
News of Guise’s murder at the hands of the King has reached Dumaine in Orleans,267 and he
vows revenge. A Jacobin friar comes forward and offers to provide exactly that by murdering
Henry. The Duke and friar head off stage to discuss the details.
Duke Dumaine enters the stage with a letter that brings the news that his elder brother has
been murdered by Henry. He is distraught, and can only think of revenge, but the death of
Henry alone “cannot satisfy” (XXIII.3): he is also aware of Navarre’s plan to come to Henry’s
aid, and vows to “beat proud Bourbon to his native home” (XXIII.8).
There might have been some dramatic tension here, as in the previous scene King Henry also
dispatched the Captain of his Guard to organise the murder of Dumaine in Orleans. The
subsequent entry of the mysterious friar could have engendered an air of suspense in the
audience, who would be unsure if he was in fact a murderer. However, the text quickly removes
that possibility. Dumaine makes clear he is aware of the plot involving the governor of Orleans
“that I with speed should have been put to death” (XXIII.12), and adds “But that’s prevented”
(XXIII.13). He might here be indicating that he has already foiled that plot, or is perhaps saying
that his own planned revenge to kill Henry will remove that threat.
266
As noted above, the Cardinal was killed at Blois the following day, 24 December 1588 - see section 4.5.17.
267
As noted against the previous scene at Footnote 263, the Duke of Mayenne was probably in Lyons at this time according to
Marlowe’s sources.
(v1.3) Page 93 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
The friar brings further news that Dumaine’s other brother, the Cardinal, “by the King’s consent
is lately / strangled unto death” (XXIII.17-18). Unaware of this,268 Dumaine is plunged deeper
into despair and wants to raise an army immediately to wage war and “assuage the tyrant’s
pride” (XXIII.22). But the Jacobin friar269 comes with another proposal and offers instead to
murder the king himself “for my conscience’ sake” (XXIII.24). He has “been a great sinner in my
days, and / The deed is meritorious” (XXIII.27-28).270 The friar will not reveal how he will get the
opportunity to assassinate the king, but Dumaine is very interested and leads him off stage to
discuss the plot in more detail.
5.3.3.21
Scene XXIV - The Assassination of King Henry
Location: Saint Cloud, Near Paris.
King Henry:
Weep not sweet Navarre, but revenge my death.
Ah Epernoun, is this thy love to me?
Henry thy King wipes off these childish tears,
And bids thee whet thy sword on Sixtus’ bones,
That it may keenly slice the Catholics.
He loves me not the best that sheds most tears,
But he that makes most lavish of his blood.
The Massacre at Paris, Sc XXIV.95-101
The culmination of the tragedy finds the two King Henries of France and Navarre joining forces
to attack the Catholic League in their Parisian stronghold.271 But no sooner have the two made
their pact and recognised their new found amity, than the Jacobin friar tricks his way into the
King’s presence under the pretence of delivering a letter. As Henry III reads the letter, he is
stabbed, but in the struggle is able to kill the friar in return. When it becomes clear that Henry
will not survive, the King declares Navarre as official heir to the French throne, who ends the
play vowing yet more revenge.
Henry III “sorrows much” (XXIV.1) for the past enmity between the two rulers. He it is that is in
far greater need of an ally now, and also has much to apologise to the Huguenot leader for.
The audience will remember that, as Anjou, he played a significant role in the Massacre,
stabbing Ramus whilst offering only token denials of his involvement to Navarre in Scene IX.
He it was too that has waged an active war against the Huguenots, including the appointment
of his mignon Joyeux as General to lead the French forces against Navarre in the battle of
Coutras (Scene XV). Now though, in his desperate state, he is eager to “recompense your
reconciled love, / With all the honours and affections, / That ever I vouchsaf’d my dearest
friends” (XXIV.6-8). Navarre is a little less effusive, content enough if he be “esteemed faithful
to the King of France, / Whose service he may still command to death” (XXIV.10-11).
The friar is announced as having been “sent from the President of Paris” with a letter. Epernoun
is immediately suspicious and advises a security search for concealed weapons. But Henry is
more trusting, having faith that “holy men ... will not offer violence to their King, / For all the
wealth and treasure of the world” (XXIV.24-25). It is not, of course, financial gain that motivates
268
The Cardinal was killed a day after Guise in real life, which might explain the later arrival of this news.
269
The friar’s name was Jacques Clément. In France the Dominican Order were known as Jacobins because their first convent in Paris
was built near the church of Saint Jacques. The Dominicans were a Catholic religious order specifically founded to combat heresy.
270
[Oliver] notes that “Protestant propaganda, such as was found in Marlowe’s probable sources, constantly alleged that this was the
approved Catholic attitude to the murder of opponents” - p.157.
271
Henry III and Navarre actually signed an accord in April 1589. Henry III was stabbed on 01 August, and died the following day see section 4.5.19.
(v1.3) Page 94 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
the assassin, and when Henry asks him if he “acknowledges me as King” (XXIV.26),272 the
Jacobin ambiguously replies “Ay, my good Lord, and will die therein” (XXIV.27). Henry
presumably takes this to be the swearing of loyal allegiance, but the audience know what’s
coming from the previous scene: as Henry reads the letter, the friar “stabs the King with a knife”
(XXIV.33.1 SD). However, in the struggle Henry somehow “getteth the knife and kills [the friar]”
(XXIV.33.2 SD).273
Epernoun wishes that the King had “let [the friar] live, / [that] We might have punish’d him for
his deserts” (XXIV.44-45), but Henry is happy to “let the villain die, and feel in hell, / Just
torments for his treachery” (XXIV.35-36), noting that his death will act as an example to those
who think to “bear arms against their sovereign” (XXIV.48). Initially, nobody is aware of the
severity of the king’s injuries, including Henry himself, although Navarre has the good sense to
call for a surgeon to inspect the wound.
In the meantime, the King calls for “the English agent” to be brought to him, so that he can
“send my sister England news of this, / And give her warning of her treacherous foes”
(XXIV.50-51). Whilst this might be Marlowe’s addition for the interest of an English audience,
Henry was widely perceived by the Catholics in France as having an affinity for England.274
More tantalising though is Marlowe possibly introducing his own personal experience here. We
know that Marlowe “had done Her Majesty good service” in connection with Rheims in the mid
1580’s,275 and he is also glimpsed in Flushing (on the Dutch coast), where he and his nemesis
Richard Baines swap counter-accusations of coining and threatening to “go to the enemy or to
Rome”.276 It thus seems certain that Marlowe had undertaken some work as a government
agent, and might therefore be making some reference to that experience here.277
Henry has a message for Queen Elizabeth which he addresses to the English agent, which is in
effect a death-bed conversion.278 No longer is it a personal war against the Guise faction; the
treachery of the Jacobin friar has turned him against the Church of Rome. If he lives, he
promises that “the papal Monarch goes / To wrack, an antichristian kingdom falls” (XXIV.5859); Henry’s “bloody hands shall tear his triple Crown, / And fire accursed Rome about his ears”
(XXIV.60-61). He turns to Navarre, his long time Huguenot enemy, and “here do swear, / To
ruinate this wicked Church of Rome” (XXIV.64-65). He finishes by expressing his love for the
two protestant rulers, “to thee [Navarre], / And to the Queen of England especially, / Whom God
hath bless’d for hating Popery” (XXIV.67-69).
Unfortunately, having thus declared his intention to take up the Protestant cause, the surgeon
announces the results of his examination, that “the wound is dangerous, / For you are stricken
with a poisoned knife” (XXIV.73-74). The surgeon tells the king straight, “Your Highness cannot
live” (XXIV.84). His mignon Epernoun is distraught, but Henry quickly accepts his fate.
272
Henry was deeply unpopular in much of France after murdering Guise, with the Sorbonne and the Pope refuting his right to the
crown as a result.
273
Some might note a prophetic similarity with the death of Marlowe himself on 30 May 1593. According to the record of the
Coroner’s Inquisition, Marlowe “drew the dagger of the said Ingram which was at his back, and with the same dagger ... then & there
maliciously gave the aforesaid Ingram two wounds on his head ... where-upon the said Ingram, in fear of being slain, ... in his own
defence & for the saving of his life, then & there struggled with the said Christopher Morley to get back from him his dagger aforesaid;
in which affray the same Ingram ... gave the said Christopher ... a mortal wound over his right eye of the depth of two inches & of the
width of one inch; of which mortal wound the aforesaid Christopher Morley then & there instantly died” - PRO Chancery C260/174/27.
274
[Briggs] - p.271, mentions that this was “another favourite theme of League pamphleteers, for whom his acceptance of the Order of
the Garter represented a feeble, if not a positively dangerous dependence on ‘la Jesabel Anglaise’.”
275
PRO Privy Council Registers PC2/14/381. See a transcript at http://www.marlowe-society.org/marlowe/life/govtagent2.html.
276
PRO SP 84/ 44/ 60 - A letter from the Governor of Flushing, Sir Robert Sidney, to Lord Burghley reporting the arrest and
deportation of Marlowe and Baines. See a transcript at http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/flushing.htm.
277
See section 3.1.4.
278
In fact Henry remained true to his religion, holding a mass as he lay dying, and pushing Navarre to convert to Catholicism even as
he named him his successor.
(v1.3) Page 95 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
In his final ‘death-bed’ speech, Henry declares Navarre will be the next King of France, and
urges his followers to “Fight in the quarrel of this valiant Prince, / For he is your lawful King and
my next heir,” since “Valois’s line ends in my tragedy” (XXIV.90.92).He holds out the hope that
the new royal house of Bourbon will “never end in blood as mine hath done” (XXIV.94).279 At
the same time Henry implores Navarre to “revenge my death” (XXIV.95), and Epernoun too:
“whet thy sword on Sextus’ bones, / That it may keenly slice the Catholics” (XXIV.98-99), and
not forgetting to “Fire Paris where these treacherous rebels lurk” (XXIV.102). His dying words
appear to be directed at the English agent once more: “Salute the Queen of England in my
name, / And tell her Henry dies her faithful friend” (XXIV.104-105).
Navarre, now King Henry IV of France, makes the final speech of the play, vowing yet more
revenge in response to this latest assassination. “Rome and all those popish Prelates there,” he
declares, “shall curse the time that e’er Navarre was King, / And ruled in France by Henry’s
fatal death” (XXIV.109-111). Although the playwright could not know it at the time he was
writing, in real life Henry IV would in fact only finally assert his regal authority in France by
converting to Catholicism,280 enabling him finally to be crowned in 1594. One can’t help feeling
that Marlowe would have appreciated the irony of such a final twist, one that, as implausible as
it may have seemed at the time, would not have looked out of place as a climax to his own
play.
279
In fact, despite eventually converting faiths, asserting his authority, and establishing a successful reign, Henry IV too would
eventually be murdered by a Catholic assassin in 1610. See section 4.5.20 for a summary of the reign of Henry IV.
280
Henry IV was alleged to have famously declared that “Paris vaut bien une messe” (‘Paris is worth a mass’).
(v1.3) Page 96 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
6.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
6.1
Bibliography & References
The following references are cited in this document using the referencing abbreviation detailed
in the Ref column.
6.1.1
6.1.2
Collected Works
Ref
Editor
Title
Publisher, Year
Website Link
[Brooke-Works]
C.F. Tucker
Brooke
The Works of Christopher Marlowe.
The Massacre at Paris is pp.440-484.
Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1910.
Marlowe Society
Reading List
[Bullen]
Arthur Henry
Bullen
The Works of Christopher Marlowe (3
Volumes). The Massacre at Paris is
contained in Vol. II. Pp.235-298.
John C. Nimmo,
London, 1885.
Online Library of
Liberty
[Cunningham]
Lt. Col. Francis
Cunningham
The Works of Christopher Marlowe.
The Massacre at Paris - pp.156-172
Frederick Warne
and Co, London,
1870
Google Books
[Dyce]
Rev. Alexander
Dyce
The Works of Christopher Marlowe
With Notes and Some Account of His
Life and Writings. The Massacre at
Paris - Vol II pp. 223-246.
William Pickering,
London, 1850.
Google Books
[Robinson]
George
Robinson
The Works of Christopher Marlowe (3
Volumes). The Massacre at Paris is
in Vol. II.
William Pickering,
London, 1826.
Google Books
Title
Publisher, Year
Website Link
The Massacre at Paris: With the
Death of the Duke of Guise. As it was
plaide by the right honourable the
Lord high Admirall his Seruants.
Written by Christopher Marlowe.
Edward White,
London (undated).
Editions of The Massacre at Paris
Ref
Editor
[O]
[Bennett]
H.S.Bennett
‘The Jew of Malta’ and ‘The
Massacre at Paris’
Methuen, London,
1931.
[Malone-Greg]
W.W.Greg
Malone Society
Reprints, Oxford,
1928.
[Oliver]
H.J.Oliver
The Revels Plays: Dido Queen of
Carthage and The Massacre at Paris
Methuen & Co Ltd,
London, 1968.
Marlowe Society
Reading List
[Oxberry]
W.Oxberry
The Massacre at Paris, A Tragedy;
by Christopher Marlow. With
Prefatory Remarks, Notes, Critical
281
and Explanatory.
London, 1818.
Vialibri.net
281
Oxberry’s individual publications of Marlowe’s plays from 1818-20 were subsequently published collectively by W. Simpkin and
R. Marshall, London in 1827.
(v1.3) Page 97 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
6.1.3
6.1.4
The Marlowe Society
Biographies
Ref
Author
Title
Publisher, Year
Website Link
[BakelessMarlowe]
John Bakeless
Christopher Marlowe
Jonathan Cape,
London, 1938.
Amazon.co.uk
[Boas-Marlowe]
F.S. Boas
Christopher Marlowe
Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1940
[Kuriyama]
Constance
Brown Kuriyama
Christopher Marlowe: A Renaissance
Life
Cornell University
Press, 2002
Marlowe Society
Reading List
[Nicholl]
Charles Nicholl
The Reckoning
Jonathan Cape Ltd,
1992
Marlowe Society
Reading List
[Honan]
Park Honan
Christopher Marlowe: Poet & Spy
Oxford University
Press, 2005.
Marlowe Society
Reading List
[Urry]
William Urry
Christopher Marlowe and Canterbury
Faber & Faber,
London, 1988
Marlowe Society
Reading List
[Wraight-Search]
A.D.Wraight and
Virginia F. Stern
In Search of Christopher Marlowe
Macdonald & Co
(London), 1965.
Republished by
Adam Hart, 1993.
Marlowe Society
Reading List
Marlowe Criticism
Ref
Author
Title
Publisher, Year
Website Link
[Bowers]
Rick Bowers
The Massacre at Paris: Marlowe’s
Messy Concensus Narrative (pp.131141) in Marlowe, History and
Sexuality: New Critical Essays on
Christopher Marlowe (Ed. Paul
Whitfield White)
AMS Press, New
York 1998.
Google Books
[Broughton N&Q]
James
Broughton
Notes and Queries C (N.S. XXIII)
1830
[Cambridge]
Ed. Patrick
Cheney
The Cambridge Companion to
Christopher Marlowe. Especially Ch
12: Dido, Queen of Carthage and
The Massacre at Paris by Sara
Munson Deats.
Cambridge
University Press,
2004.
Marlowe Society
Reading List
[Dabbs]
Thomas W.
Dabbs
Reforming Marlowe: The Nineteenth
Century Canonization of a
Renaissance Dramatist
Bucknell University
Press (US), 1991
Amazon.co.uk
[Ellis-Fermor]
Una Ellis-Fermor
Christopher Marlowe
Methuen, London,
1927
[Leech]
Ed. Clifford
Leech
Marlowe: A Collection of Critical
Essays. Especially The Massacre at
Paris and Edward II by F.P.Wilson
pp.128-137.
Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, 1964.
Marlowe Society
Reading List
[Sanders]
Wilbur Sanders
The Dramatist and the Received Idea
Cambridge
University Press,
1968
Google Books
(v1.3) Page 98 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
6.1.5
[Steane]
J.B. Steane
Marlowe: A Critical Study. Especially
A Note on The Massacre at Paris
pp236-246
Cambridge
University Press,
1964.
Marlowe Society
Reading List
[Weil]
Judith Weil
Christopher Marlowe: Merlin’s
Prophet. Especially Ch. 5: Mirrors for
Foolish Princes pp82-104
Cambridge
University Press,
1977.
Amazon.co.uk
Intro & Ch 2
Journal Articles
Ref
Author
Title
Publisher, Year
Website Link
[Adams]
J.Q. Adams
The Massacre at Paris Leaf in The
th
Library, 4 Series, Vol. XIV No. 2
(1934), pp.447-469
March 1934
The Library
articles at Oxford
Journals
[BoasNewsbooks]
F.S. Boas
Christopher Marlowe and the
Newsbooks in Journalism Quarterly,
xiv (March, 1937), pp.18-22
1937
[Briggs]
Julia Briggs
Marlowe’s Massacre at Paris: A
Reconsideration in Review of English
Studies, Vol 34 (1983), pp.257-278
1983
[Henderson]
Philip Henderson
Marlowe as Messenger, a letter in
TLS, 12 June 1953.
12 June 1953
[Kocher-Hotman]
Paul H. Kocher
François Hotman and Marlowe’s The
Massacre at Paris in Publications of
the Modern Language Association
LVI (1941) pp349-368.
1941
JSTOR
[KocherPamphlets]
Paul H. Kocher
Contemporary Pamphlet
Backgrounds for Marlowe’s The
Massacre at Paris in Modern
Language Quarterly Vol VIII (1947)
No. 2 pp.151-173 and No. 3 pp309318.
1947
MLQ VIII.3 pp151173
Edward Allde as a Typical Trade
Printer. An account of an Elizabethan
Printer and his work. in The Library,
th
4 Series, Vol. X No.2 (1929),
pp.121-62
September 1929
[McKerrow-Allde]
6.1.6
The Marlowe Society
R.B. McKerrow
RES articles at
Oxford Journals
MLQ VIII.3 pp309318
The Library
articles at Oxford
Journals
AbeBooks.co.uk
[Nosworthy]
J.M. Nosworthy
The Marlowe Manuscript in The
th
Library, 4 Series, Vol. XXVI No. 2
(1945), pp.158-171
September 1945
[Wells-N&Q]
William Wells
Notes and Queries - 30 March, 6
April 1940
March/April 1940
The Library
articles at Oxford
Journals
French History
Ref
Author
Title
Publisher, Year
Website Link
[England]
Sylvia Lennie
England
The Massacre of Saint
282
Bartholomew
John Long,
London, 1938
Amazon.co.uk
282
This is very well researched and readable account of the Massacre based on a wide range of primary sources, many contemporary,
by Sylvia England, a member of the Société d’Histoire Littéraire de la France. As she says herself, “No new material is embodied in
(v1.3) Page 99 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
6.1.7
The Marlowe Society
Ref
Author
Title
Publisher, Year
Website Link
[L’EstoileJournal]
Pierre L’Estoile,
Louis-Raymond
Lefevre (Ed.)
Journal pour le Règne de Henri III
(1574-1589)
Paris, 1943
[Holt]
Mack P. Holt
The French Wars of Religion 15621629 (Second Edition)
Cambridge
University Press,
2005
Google Books
[KnechtEssential]
Robert J. Knecht
The French Religious Wars 15621598 (Essential Histories Series)
Osprey Publishing,
Oxford, 2002
Google Books
[KnechtSeminar]
Robert J. Knecht
The French Wars of Religion 15591598 (Seminar Studies in History
Series, Second Edition)
Longman
Publishing, 1996
Amazon.co.uk
[MargaretMemoires]
Marguerite de
Valois
Memoires
Paris, 1628. Edition
published in 1842
by the Société de
l’Histoire de France
[Stevenson]
Rev. Joseph
Stevenson M.A.
(Ed.)
Correspondence of Sir Henry Unton
Knt., Ambassador from Queen
Elizabeth to Henry IV, King of
France, in the years MDXCI and
MDXCII. From the Originals and
Authentic Copies in The State Paper
Office, The British Museum and The
Bodleian Library.
Printed for the
Roxburghe Club.
London: William
Nicol. Shakspeare
Press, 1847.
Cornell University
Library
Website Link
Marlowe’s Contemporary Sources
6.1.7.1 St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre Sources
Ref
Author
Title
Publisher, Year
[Varamund]
Ernest
Varamund of
283
Freseland
A True and Plaine Report of the
284
Furious Outrages of Fraunce
1573
[SerresCommentaries]
Jean de
285
Serres
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 ....
(Translated into English by Thom as
Timme)
London, 1574.
[SerresCommentariesPart-4]
Jean de Serres
The Fourth Parte of Commentaries of
the Ciuill warres of Fraunce, tr. T
Tymme
London, 1576.
this book. Every possible source has, however, been diligently sought by the writer,” and a large bibliography is listed. But being a
narrative derived from various sources, only the sources of exceptional or controversial statements are cited directly.
283
Varamund is generally believed to be a pseudonym for François Hotman, a Huguenot lawyer - see [Kocher-Hotman] p.350.
284
This is an English translation of a Latin text published the same year (London, 1573) entitled De Furoribus Gallicis, horrenda &
indigna Amirallii Castillionei, Nobilium atq; illus-trium caede ...: Vera &Hsi mplex Narratio. Ernesto Varamundo Frisio Auctore
285
Whilst Books I-IX and XI-XII are written, by Jean de Serres, Paul Kocher established that Book X was a “word-for-word reprint”
of [Varamund] - see [Kocher-Hotman] p.349-350.
(v1.3) Page 100 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Ref
Author
Title
Publisher, Year
[Barnaud]
Nicholas
Barnaud
Le Reveille-Matin des François,
Composé par Eusebe Philadelphe
Cosmopolite, en forme de
286
Dialogues
Edinburgh, 1574
[EstienneKatherine]
Henri Estienne
A Mervaylous Discourse upon the
Lyfe of Katherine de Medicis,
Queene Mother
Heidelberg, 1575
[Serres-Coligny]
Jean de Serres
Lyfe of Iasper Colignie Shatilion
(Translated into English by Arthur
Golding)
London, 1576
[Dowriche]
Anne Dowriche
The French Historie
287
Website Link
London, 1589
Questia.com
Publisher, Year
Website Link
6.1.7.2 Sources for Subsequent Events
Ref
Author
Title
Catholic League Publications (all except [Boucher-Gaverston] cited in [Kocher-Pamphlets])
[DiscoursDeplorable]
Discours deplorable du meurtre et
assasinat ... de ... feu Henry de
Lorraine
Orleans, 1588
Histoire Tragique et Mémorable de
Pierre de Gaverston
Paris, 1588
[La-Vie-HenryValois]
La Vie et faits notables de Henry de
Valois
Paris, 1589
[Le-Martire]
Le Martire des Deux Freres
Paris (?), 1589
[Les-Meurs]
Les Meurs Humeurs et
Comportemens de Henry de Valois
Paris, 1589
[HistoireMeurtre-Guise]
Histoire au Vray du Meurtre &
Assassinat . . . de Monsieur le Duc
de Guise
Paris (?), 1589
[CruautezSanguinaires]
Suitte Des Cruautez Sanguinaires,
exercees enuers feu Monseigneur le
Cardinal de Guise
Paris (?), 1589
[BoucherGaverston]
Jean Boucher
Protestant / English Publications (all cited in [Kocher-Pamphlets])
[HuraultDiscourse]
M. Hurault
[Contre-League]
[Hurault-AntiSixtus]
286
287
M. Hurault
A Discourse upon the Present Estate
of France.
London, 1588
Contre-League, tr(anslated by). E. A.
London, 1589
Anti-Sixtus, tr(anslated by). A. P.
London, 1590
This work in French was untranslated.
This is in fact a narrative poem which is a versification of [Varamund], and so provides no original material.
(v1.3) Page 101 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
6.1.8
The Marlowe Society
Ref
Author
Title
Publisher, Year
[Colynet-CivilWars]
Antony Colynet
The True History of the Ciuil Warres
of France: Gathered from the yere of
our Lord 1585. untill this present
October, 1591
London, 1591
[Martine-MarSixtus]
Martine Mar-Sixtus. A Second Replie
Against ... Six-tus the Fift
London, 1591
[An-ExcellentDiscourse]
An Excellent Discourse upon the now
Present Estate of France, Translated
out of French by E.A.
London, 1592
Website Link
Other Referenced Works
Ref
Author
Title
Publisher, Year
Website Link
[Chambers]
E.K.Chambers
The Elizabethan Stage (4 Volumes)
Oxford University
Press, 1923.
Marlowe Society
Reading List
[Collier-History]
John Payne
Collier
The History of English Dramatic
Poetry to the Time of Shakespeare
and Annals of the Stage to the
Restoration, Vol III, in particular the
chapter on Christopher Marlow, and
the Employment of Blank-Verse
Upon the Public Stage (pp.107-146)
London: John
Murray, AlbemarleStreet, 1831
Google Books
[Dodsley-Collier]
John Payne
Collier
The Introduction to The Jew of Malta
edited by J.P. Collier, appearing in
Dodsley’s Old Plays, Vol. VIII
1825
[GregBibliography]
W.W.Greg
A Bibliography of the English Printed
Drama to the Restoration
London, 1939-59
[Henslowe’s
Diary]
Ed. R.A.Foakes
and R.T.Rickert
Henslowe’s Diary
Cambridge
University Press,
2002 (2nd Edition).
[TannenbaumScraps]
Dr. S. A.
Tannenbaum
Shakespearean Scraps, in particular
pp177-186 on the Collier Leaf.
Columbia
University Press,
1933
[Werstine]
Paul Werstine
His article “Plays in Manuscript” in A
New History of Early English Drama.
(Ed. John D. Cox and David Scott
Kastan)
Columbia
University Press,
1997
6.2
Internet Links
6.2.1
General Marlowe Links
Marlowe Society
Reading List
There follows a list of Massacre-specific website links. A wider selection of Marlowe-related
links is provided by the Marlowe Society website at:
http://www.marlowe-society.org/reading/links/linksmarlowe.html
(v1.3) Page 102 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
6.2.2
6.2.3
The Marlowe Society
Online Texts of The Massacre at Paris
Web Site
Address
The Massacre at Paris - Project Gutenberg:
Single E-Book in text format (ASCII, and zipped).
Transcription that maintains original spelling and
punctuation of undated Octavo, but with Scene
division inserted as first inserted by [Bullen].
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1496
The Massacre at Paris - Peter Farey’s Site:
HTML text of the entire play, with modernised
spelling and punctuation.
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/mass.htm
Wikipedia Links
Web Site
Address
Wikipedia: Marlowe’s Play
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Massacre_at_Paris
Wikipedia: French History
6.2.4
French Wars of Religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
St Bartholomew’s Day
Massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massac
re
Catherine de Medici:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_de%27_Medici
Charles IX:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IX_of_France
Henry III (Anjou):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_III_of_France
Duke of Guise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_I,_Duke_of_Guise
Henry of Navarre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_France
Stage Productions
Production
Link
Glasgow Citizens Theatre Company 30 January - 14 February 1981
Performed at the Citizens Theatre, Glasgow. Directed by
Philip Prowse, with Robert Gwilym as Guise, and Gary
Oldman also in the cast.
The Royal Shakespeare Company - October 1985
Two performances at The Other Place, Stratford Upon
Avon. Directed by Paul Marcus, with a cast including
Lindsay Duncan, Penelope Freeman and Roger Hyams.
Theatricalia Production Archive
(v1.3) Page 103 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
Production
Link
The Marlowe Project - June 1999
Performed at The Producers Club, New York City. Directed
by Jeff Dailey, who reordered some of the scenes, as well
as using the additional Collier Leaf text, with Douglas
Gregory as the Duke of Guise, Alta Morice as Catherine de
Medici, and Gregory Contreras as Charles IX.
Off-Off Broadway Review
Australian Theatre for Young People - March 2001
Performed at the Newton Theatre, Sydney. Text adapted by
playwright Tommy Murphy, with much new material added.
Directed by David Berthold, with Jeremy Waters as the
Duke of Guise, Lucy Wirth as Catherine de Medici, and
Michael Pontin as Anjou.
Review in Marlowe Society of
America Newsletter, Vol, XXI, No.2,
Autumn 2001.
Bedrock Theatre Company - September 2002
Performed at the Project Arts Centre, Dublin. Marlowe’s
text adapted and new material by playwright Alex Johnston.
Directed by Jimmy Fay, with Karl Shiels as the Duke of
Guise, and Andrea Irvine as Catherine De Medici.
Guardian Review
Doorslam Productions - 6-17 August 2008
Performed at Theatre Works, St. Kilda, Melbourne,
Australia. Used Marlowe’s text. Directed by Mark Wilson &
Jenny Lovell, with Myles Tankle as the Duke of Guise,
Jenny Lovell as Catherine de Medici, and Joel Davey as
Anjou.
Review by Martin Bell
Globe Read Not Dead - 18 September 2011
Shakespeare’s Globe Education’s excellent Read Not Dead
series ran a lecture on Marlowe’s play in the morning
followed by a fully staged reading in the afternoon, directed
by James Wallace, with Dominic Rowan as the Duke of
Guise, Linda Marlowe as Catherine de' Medici, Ben Deery
as Henry III, and Charlie Anson as Navarre.
Fourth Monkey Theatre Company – 18-19 March 2014
Performed in Canterbury Cathedral Crypt. Marlowe's text
adapted. Directed by Andrew Dawson & Paul Aillin, with
Reuben Beau Davies as the Duke of Guise, Dan
Chrisostomou as Navarre, Alice Trow as Catherine de
Medici, and Katie Cherry as the Duchess of Guise in an
adapted part.
Marlowe Society Event Listing &
Review Links
The Dolphin’s Back – 11-29 March 2014
Performed at The Rose on Bankside. Used Marlowe's text.
Directed by James Wallace, with John Gregor as the Duke
of Guise, Kristin Milward as Catherine de Medici, James
Askill as Anjou, and Lachlan McCall as Navarre.
Marlowe Society Event Listing &
Review Links
(v1.3) Page 104 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
A
Appendix A: Document Transcripts
A.1
Collier Leaf Manuscript Text
The following shows the text of the first part of Scene XIX as it appears in the extant [O] printed
addition and compares it to the manuscript text of the same scene as it appears on the Collier
Leaf. The Collier Leaf is discussed in section 2.3.
[O] Text
Collier Leaf Text
RECTO
t
Enter a Souldier.
Enter A souldier w a mvskett
SOULDIER. Sir, to you sir, that dare make the Duke a
cuckolde, and use a counterfeite key to his privie Chamber
doore: And although you take out nothing but your owne, yet
you put in that which displeaseth him,
and so forestall his market, and set up your standing where
you should not:
and though I come not to take possession (as I would I might)
yet I meane to keepe you out, which I will if this geare horde:
what are ye come so soone? have at ye sir.
Now ser to you y dares make advke a Cuckolde
and vse a Counterfeyt key to his privye Chamber
r
thoughe you take out none but yo owne treasure
t
t
yett you putt in y displeases him, And fill vp his rome y
he shold occupie. Herein ser you forestalle the market
r
and sett vpe yo standinge where you shold not: But you will
saye you leave him rome enoughe besides: thats no answere
hes to have the Choyce of his owne freeland, yf it be
not to free theres the questione, now ser where he is
your landlorde. you take vpon you to be his, and will needs
enter by defaulte, whatt thoughe you were once in possession
yett Comminge vpon you once vnawares he frayde you
out againe. therefore your entrye is mere Intrvsione
this is againste the lawe ser : And thoughe I Come not
to keep possessione as I wold I mighte. yet I Come to
keepe you out ser. yow are wellcome ser have at you
Enter Mugeroun.
Enter minion
and whereas he is your Landlord, you would take upon you to
be his, and tyll the ground that he himself should occupy,
which is his own free land. If it be not too free there's the
question:
He shootes at him and killes him.
t
He Kills Him
Trayterouse guise ah thow hast mvrthered me
Enter the Guise [attended].
Enter guise
GUISE. Holde thee tall Souldier, take thou this and flye.
Hold thee tale soldier take the this and flye
Exit Souldier.
Exit
thus fall Imperfett ezhalatione
ch
w our great sonn of fraunce Cold not effecte
a fyery meteor in the firmament
lye there the kinges delyght and guises scorne
revenge it henry yf thow liste or darst
I did it onely in dispight of thee
Lye there the Kings delight, and Guises scorne.
Revenge it Henry as thou list'st or dar'st,
I did it only in despite of thee.
Take him away.
VERSO
fondlie hast thow in Censte the guises sowle
t
y of it self was hote enoughe to worke
thy lust degestione w' eztreamest shame.
the armye I have gathered now shall ayme
more at thie end then exterpatione
and when thow thinkst I have foregotten this
t
and y thow most reposest one my faythe
then will I wake thee from thie folishe dreame
and lett thee see thie self my prisoner
Exuent
(v1.3) Page 105 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
A.2
The Marlowe Society
Collier Leaf Manuscript Facsimile Image
(v1.3) Page 106 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
B
The Marlowe Society
Appendix B: Echoes from Other Plays
The following are examples of lines in The Massacre at Paris that are identical or very similar to
lines found in other contemporary plays as cited in [Oliver]288. As noted in section 2.2.2, this is
one of a number of characteristics that suggest a corrupt reported text produced from memorial
reconstruction.
B.1
Henry VI Part 3
Seroune:
289
O let me pray before I take my death!
The Massacre at Paris - VIII.7
Rutland:
O let me pray before I take my death!
Henry VI Part 3 - I.iii.35
Queen Mother: What art thou dead, sweet son? Speak to thy Mother.
The Massacre at Paris - XIII.16
Queen Margaret: O Ned, sweet Ned, speak to thy mother, boy!
Henry VI Part 3 - V.v.49
Queen Mother: And he nor hears, nor sees us what we do
The Massacre at Paris - XIII.18
Warwick:
And he nor sees, nor hears us, what we say.
Henry VI Part 3 - II.vi.63
Navarre:
And makes his footstool on security
The Massacre at Paris - XVI.41
King Edward:
And made our footstool of security.
Henry VI Part 3 - V.vii.14
Navarre:
And we are grac'd with wreaths of victory
The Massacre at Paris - XVIII.2
King Edward:
And we are grac’d with wreaths of victory.
Henry VI Part 3 - V.iii.2
Dumaine:
288
289
Sweet Duke of Guise our prop to lean upon,
Now thou art dead, here is no stay for us
[Oliver] - pp.lv-lvii
Examples quoted from Andrew S. Cairncross (Ed.), Henry VI Part 3 (Arden Third Series, 1996).
(v1.3) Page 107 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
The Massacre at Paris - XXIII.4-5
King Edward:
Sweet Duke of York, our prop to lean upon,
Now thou art gone, we have no staff, no stay.
Henry VI Part 3 - II.i.68-69
B.2
Henry VI Part 2
Guise:
290
For this, I wake, when others think I sleep.
The Massacre at Paris - II.45
York:
Watch thou and wake, when others be asleep291
Henry VI Part 2 - I.i.246
Guise:
And he shall follow my proud chariot’s wheels.
The Massacre at Paris - XXI.54
Gloucester:
That erst did follow my proud chariot wheels
Henry VI Part 2 - II.iv.13
Friar:
O my Lord, I have been a great sinner in my days, and
the deed is meritorious.
Gloucester:
But that my heart accordeth with my tongue Seeing the deed is meritorious,
Henry VI Part 2 - III.i.269-270
B.3
Edward the Second 292
Queen Mother: How likes your grace my son’s pleasantness?
His mind you see runs on his minions.
The Massacre at Paris - XIV.44-45
Isabella:
Look, Lancaster, how passionate he is,
And still his mind runs on his minion.
Edward the Second - II.ii.3-4
290
291
292
Examples quoted from Ronald Knowles (Ed.) Henry VI Part 2 (Arden Third Series, 1999).
[Oliver] - p.100 notes that this phrase may be proverbial.
Examples quoted from Charles R. Forker (Ed.), Edward the Second (The Revels Plays Series, Manchester University Press, 1995).
(v1.3) Page 108 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
Dumaine:
The Marlowe Society
Come let us away and levy men,
’Tis war that must assuage the tyrant’s pride.
King Edward:
Come Edmund, let’s away and levy men,
’Tis war that must abate these barons’ pride.
Edward the Second - II.ii.98-99
Henry III:
These bloody hands shall tear his triple Crown,
And fire accursed Rome about his ears.
I’ll fire his erased buildings and incense
The papal towers to kiss the holy earth.
The Massacre at Paris - XXIV.60-63
King Edward:
Proud Rome, that hatchest such imperial grooms
For these thy superstitious taper-lights
Wherewith thy antichristian churches blaze,
I’ll fire thy crazèd buildings and enforce
The papal towers to kiss the lowly ground.
Edward the Second - I.iv.97-101
B.4
Arden of Faversham 293
Duchess Guise: Sweet Mugeroun, ’tis he that hath my heart,
And Guise usurps it, cause I am his wife.
The Massacre at Paris - XV.3-4
Alice:
Sweet Mosby is the man that hath my heart,
And he usurps it, having nought but this That I am tied to him by marriage.
Arden of Faversham - II.ii.3-4
293
Examples quoted from Martin White (Ed.), Arden of Faversham (New Mermaid Edition, A&C Black, 2000).
(v1.3) Page 109 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
C
The Marlowe Society
Appendix C: Sir Henry Unton’s Letter to Burghley
carried by Mr Marlin
The following letter294 dated 17 March 1592 is written by Sir Henry Unton “to the Lord
Treasurer”, William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley. Unton is Queen Elizabeth’s Ambassador to
Henry IV, King of France, and is writing from Dieppe on the channel coast. Rouen was located
south of Dieppe, on the River Seine between Le Havre and Paris, and had been controlled by
the Catholic League since 1589. Henry IV had laid siege to the city in November 1591 with a
royalist force aided by a contingent of English troops led by the Earl of Essex. The siege
continued through the winter until it was finally broken by the Duke of Parma and his Spanish
forces who were based in the Netherlands. The intriguing aspect of the communication is that it
is carried back to England by a “Mr Marlin” - see section 3.1.4.
To the Lord Threasurer ; by Mr Marlin295
My very good Lord ; by my former letters of the 13th and 23rd of February
I did advertise your Lordship what order the Kinge had given for the victualinge of her Majesties pinasses, and what they had receaved bothe in money
296
and victuall; I did also deliver howe much ther departure would prejudice
the seige at Roan, and howe necessary their staie was for the furderance therof,
and the Kinges earnest request in that behalfe ; wherof I craved your Lordships
answer and present direction, but as yett I have heard nothinge therof
from your Lordship. They which have the charge of the pinnasses doe complaine
of want of victualls, and that they have had none thes seaven daies;
and they feare the Kinge is not able to furnishe them with victuall, in respect
the countrey is so harried and spoiled, and nowe very unable to yeald it
which I confesse they have reason to feare, for all things growe to excessive
prises and an extreame dearth ; the people of the contry dyinge daylie of
famine, insomuchas 4,000 are sayed to be dead therof within this moneth, and
all things must of necessitie shortely growe to extreme scarcety in these parts
wher the two greate armies have eaten upp all. Wherfore they that have
charge of the pinnasses doe desier they may retoume, or be in tyme provided
for. I doubt not but the Kinge will pay them money, as he hath doen, but to
victuall them here is almoste impossible, and they were heretofore rather contented to accept money then victualls. If I were at the campe I might procure money for them, and I have earnestly written to the Kinge this day
urginge his better regard of them ; wherof heretofore they often complained
without cause.
The letter signifyinge their complaint I receaved yesterday, which I send
to your Lordship here inclosed;297 this bearrer also they send, by whom I
thought good to write to your Lordship to crave your furder directions in that
behalfe, beinge sorry to see ther wants, and not knowinge howe they may be
supplied for victuall but from England; and hopinge to obtaine money
for them of the Kinge att my cominge to him, which shalbe with in 3 or 4
daies; for if her Majesties forces come not hether in the meane tyme, I
294
Transcribed as Letter CCVII in [Stevenson] - pp.388-390
295
Footnote in [Stevenson]: The original letter is in the State Paper Office; and a copy in the volume already quoted [Cottonian MS
Calig. E. viii], fol. 383.
296
297
Footnote in [Stevenson]: Here is the beginning of the Cottonian transcript.
Footnote in [Stevenson]: This inclosure has not been preserved.
(v1.3) Page 110 of 111
Marlowe’s Works
The Marlowe Society
thincke it necessarie to attende the Kinge for this and other speciall causes.
Yf the pinnasses retourn e, the whole action of Roan is overthrowen, for the
Hollanders will not staie after them, and then any succors may passe alonge
the river and enter the towne; which I leave to your Lordships better consideration.
This daie I have receaved advertisement from Gravelyn by Adams, whom
I did lately send to the enemies campe, (and did take that in his way thether)
that the Duke of Parma retourneth into the Lowe Contries, and will
either give over the seige of Rue, or leave some troupes with the Duke
De Mayne to continewe the seige. We doubte the contrary, but soch is his
advertisement, and that the Duke of Parma marcheth away and retourneth
not.
Ought of the enemies campe I am advertised that the death of the Duke of
Florence is confirmed, who is saied to have lefte a very great treasure; wherof,
as also of the government of the state, his brother, who hath longe lived in
Spaine, shall have charge. He is onley Spanishe, and duringe the minoritie of
the Infant will dispose bothe of the state and treasure to the Kinge of
Spaines will, which may trouble all Italy. The Duke of Florence death will
greately prejudice the Kinge, for he was well affected to him and an enemie
to Spaine. I doubt not but your Lordship is fully advertised of these
occurances out of Italie, wherfor I moste humbly take my leave.
From Diepe, this 17th of March, 1591, in haste.
Your Lordships to command,
Henry Unton.
(v1.3) Page 111 of 111

The Massacre at Paris

Transcription

Similar documents

2012 ADA Celebration

Thomas Quasthoff. - Philharmonie de Paris

french leader in the information about higher education

Spotlight Spring 2014

Paul Merton - Marlowe Theatre

PDF of this page

Exchange Programme at Paris1 Pantheon Sorbonne

The SOHDA Howl, Vol. 1, Issue 8

BD Jet Lag.wps - YattanoeL.com

Archived Field Experiences Aarti Agarwal, HIV