When we pass from sources to authorities the list of notable works is even longer. La Ferrière’s _Le XVI^[e] siècle et les Valois_—the fruit of researches in the Record Office in London—appeared in 1879; M. Forneron’s _Histoire de Philippe II_ (4 vols.) was published in 1887, and is even more valuable than his earlier _Histoire des ducs de Guise_ (1877). Besides these, in the decade of the 80’s, are Durier’s _Les Huguenots en Bigorre_ (1884); Communay’s _Les Huguenots dans le Béarn et la Navarre_ (1886); Lettenhove’s _Les Huguenots et les Gueux_ (1885); the baron de Ruble’s _Le traité de Cateau-Cambrésis_ (1889), and the abbé Marchand’s _Charles de Cossé, Comte de Brissac_ (1889). M. de Crue’s notable _Anne, duc de Montmorency_ appeared in the same year and his no less scholarly _Le parti des politiques au lendemain de Saint Barthélemy_ three years later. M. Marlet’s _Le comte de Montgomery_ was published in 1890; M. Georges Weill’s _Les théories sur le pouvoir royal en France pendant les guerres de religion_, in 1891; M. Henri Hauser’s _François de La Noue_ in 1892; M. Bernard de Lacombe’s _Catherine de Médicis entre Guise et Condé_ in 1899, and, most recently of all, M. Courteault’s _Blaise de Montluc_ (1908). Many contributions in the _Revue historique_, the _Revue des questions historiques_, the _English Historical Review_, the _Revue d’histoire diplomatique_, the _Revue des deux mondes_, and one article in the _American Historical Review_, January, 1903, by M. Hauser, “The Reformation and the Popular Classes in the Sixteenth Century,” are equally valuable, as the notes will show. I have also consulted many articles in the proceedings of various local or provincial historical societies, as the Société de Paris et de l’Ile de France; the Société de l’histoire de Normandie, the Société d’histoire et d’archéologie de Genève, etc., and the admirable series known as the _Bulletin de la Société du protestantisme français_, which is a mine of historical lore. While the present work falls in the epoch of the French Reformation, no attempt has been made to treat that subject in so far as the Reformation is assumed primarily to have been a religious manifestation. Doctrine, save when it involved polity, has been ignored. But into the political, diplomatic, and economic activities of the period I have tried to go at some length. As to the last feature, it is not too much to say that our interpretation of the sixteenth century has been profoundly changed within the last twenty years by the progress made in economic history. Such works as Weiss’s _La chambre ardente_ and Hauser’s _Ouvriers du temps passé_ have revolutionized the treatment of this subject.