deffence contre les At first sight the title seems to be an allusion to the Vindiciae tirans’. but the reference to Francis II suggests an earlier work, perhaps Etienne de contre tyrannos, La which had been begun after the 1548 tax Discours de la servitude volontaire Boétie’s riots in the southwest, re-worked in the 1550s, and finally brought to a wider audience through the third volume (1577) of Mémoires de de France sous Charles Goulart’s l’Estat Perhaps it was inclusion of the work that was at the back of Neufiesme. Goulart’s Rozée’s mind? We are reminded of the paradox whereby Goulart was both the explicit and implicit target for a good deal of criticism to the extent that we might even see the Rozée’s – as having been written in reaction to the Protestant but also Histoire Mémoires minister’s – a key source from which he drew a lot of material, albeit selectively. It was particularly galling for Rozée when Catholic writers let the side down. Whereas defamatory statements were normal in Protestant accounts, estonné de les oüir ‘on s’est dans les escrits de ceux qui ont voulu faire croire sont Could a Catholic qu’ils catholiques’. have written the Rozée was doubtful. In the wake of the bull Conseil salutaire? – excommunicating Henry III the condemnation of Sixtus V launched by the ‘hérétique’ Michel Hurault was understandable but fort de voir ceux qui faisoient – ‘on s’estonna profession de la religion catholique combattre cette And the Catholic historian Julien bulle’. Peleus, wrote sa plume mouillée dans une mauvaise ‘[avec] encre’. The Peleus reference can detain us a moment because it throws into relief the difficulty we face in trying to read mind. Approximately the same age as Rozée, Peleus was a Rozée’s prolific and published author and a leading barrister in the Paris Parlement. Under Henri IV he became and Was there jealousy? Rozée may have historiographe. conseiller d’Etat
deffence contre les tirans’. At first sight the title seems to be an allusion to the Vindiciae contre tyrannos, but the reference to Francis II suggests an earlier work, perhaps Etienne de La Boétie’s Discours de la servitude volontaire which had been begun after the 1548 tax riots in the southwest, re-worked in the 1550s, and finally brought to a wider audience through the third volume (1577) of Goulart’s Mémoires de l’Estat de France sous Charles Neufiesme. Perhaps it was Goulart’s inclusion of the work that was at the back of Rozée’s mind? We are reminded of the paradox whereby Goulart was both the explicit and implicit target for a good deal of Rozée’s criticism – to the extent that we might even see the Histoire as having been written in reaction to the Protestant minister’s Mémoires – but also a key source from which he drew a lot of material, albeit selectively. It was particularly galling for Rozée when Catholic writers let the side down. Whereas defamatory statements were normal in Protestant accounts, ‘on s’est estonné de les oüir dans les escrits de ceux qui ont voulu faire croire qu’ils sont catholiques’. Could a Catholic have written the Conseil salutaire? – Rozée was doubtful. In the wake of the bull excommunicating Henry III the condemnation of Sixtus V launched by the ‘hérétique’ Michel Hurault was understandable – but ‘on s’estonna fort de voir ceux qui faisoient profession de la religion catholique combattre cette bulle’. And the Catholic historian Julien Peleus, wrote ‘[avec] sa plume mouillée dans une mauvaise encre’. The Peleus reference can detain us a moment because it throws into relief the difficulty we face in trying to read Rozée’s mind. Approximately the same age as Rozée, Peleus was a prolific and published author and a leading barrister in the Paris Parlement. Under Henri IV he became conseiller d’Etat and historiographe. Was there jealousy? Rozée may have