NOTE.
One of the most violent of the satires aimed at the Cardinal of Lorraine was that called “The Tiger,” about which very little is known. The authorship is doubtful, the title disputed, and of two works recently brought to light, it is hard to say which is the original. De Thou speaks of a “libellus cui Tigridi præfixus.” In a tract, “Religionis et Regis adversus Calvini, Bezæ et Ottomanni conjuratorum factionis defensio prima” (8vo. 1562, fol. 17), we read: “Hic te, Ottomanne, excutere incipio. Scis enim ex cujus officina Tigris prodiit, liber certe tigridi parente dignissimus. Tute istius libelli authorem....” There is also extant a letter to Hotmann from Sturm, who was rector of the High School of Strasburg in June, 1562: “Ex hoc genere Tygris, immanis illa bellua quam tu hic contra cardinalis existimationem divulgare curasti.” But if these two authorities are conclusive as to Hotmann’s authorship, they leave us in doubt as to what was the real title of the satire, and which is the original of two contemporary libels. To the researches of M. Charles Nodier we owe the discovery of a manuscript poem entitled: “Le Tigre, Satire sur les Gestes mémorables des Guysards” (4to, 1561), and beginning thus:
The title of the other satire is “Epistre envoiée au Tygre de la France,” and begins thus:—“Tigre enragé, vipère vénimeuse, sépulcre d’abomination, spectacle de malheur, jusques à quand sera-ce que tu abuseras de la jeunesse de nostre roy?” It charges the Cardinal with incest, but the “sister” was a sister-in-law, Anne of Este, wife of Duke Francis of Guise: “Qui ne voit rien de saint que tu ne souilles, rien de chaste que tu ne violes, rien de bon que tu ne gâtes. L’honneur de ta sœur ne se peut garantir d’avec toy. Tu laisses ta robe, tu prens l’épée pour l’aller voir. Le mari ne peut être si vigilant que tu ne deçoives sa femme,” etc. This was first printed at Strasburg in 1562, and it was for selling one or other of these that Martin Lhomme was put to death. The indictment mentions “épîtres divers et cartels diffamatoires,” but no verse—which is not however conclusive against the poem. The date appears adverse to the claim of the prose satire; but both versions are so much alike as to suggest community of origin. May there not have been a Latin original, and may not Henri Étienne, author of the “Discours merveilleux,” have had more to do with it than Francis Hotmann, professor of civil law at Strasburg? The proclamation issued against it by the Parliament of Paris bears date 13th July, 1560. [See Brunet: “Manuel du ibraire,” ii. 193.]