Again, Rozée was dismissive: the work exemplified the licence and confusion of the times, and demonstrated how de gens coururent pour tirer la barbe du lion qui estoit ‘beaucoup abbatu’. Rozée played his trump-card regarding the 1591 jurisdictional stand-off by producing as his own witness Matteo Zampini, an Italian jurist (and ardent who had been in the Ligueur) entourage of Catherine de Medici and who, according to de Thou, wrote Ad Calumnias, at the behest of the De Thou was not impressed by Ligue. …responsio Zampini’s treatise: défendit une mauvaise cause par des raisons encore plus By contrast, Rozée ‘il mauvaises’. evidently found views helpful. Popes were not chosen through the intrigue of Zampini’s powerful nations, but rather were called by God. Excommunication of French kings in the past had been profitable in bringing them to repentance and thence to absolution. Those bishops who in the past had argued that the of excommunication were pope’s powers limited had themselves been schismatics; consequently their views could be discounted. Royalists who asserted that French kings had special privileges always stopped short of revealing their sources, for, in pouvoir estre mesme du truth, ‘ne excommunié d’aucun, pape, pas un un chrestien et baptisé soit n’est privilege duqu’el capable’. Analysis of exploration of sources regarding the 1591 controversy has vindicated Rozée’s 1914 observations: Rozée drew on a range of sources (and source-types) from both Valois’ sides of a major debate. At the same time he has treated them unevenly Zampini was – named whilst royalist polemicists were not, and the presentation of the views Italian’s occupied three times the number of words devoted to the collective views of Faye,
Again, Rozée was dismissive: the work exemplified the licence and confusion of the times, and demonstrated how ‘beaucoup de gens coururent pour tirer la barbe du lion qui estoit abbatu’. Rozée played his trump-card regarding the 1591 jurisdictional stand-off by producing as his own witness Matteo Zampini, an Italian jurist (and ardent Ligueur) who had been in the entourage of Catherine de Medici and who, according to de Thou, wrote Ad Calumnias, …responsio at the behest of the Ligue. De Thou was not impressed by Zampini’s treatise: ‘il défendit une mauvaise cause par des raisons encore plus mauvaises’. By contrast, Rozée evidently found Zampini’s views helpful. Popes were not chosen through the intrigue of powerful nations, but rather were called by God. Excommunication of French kings in the past had been profitable in bringing them to repentance and thence to absolution. Those bishops who in the past had argued that the pope’s powers of excommunication were limited had themselves been schismatics; consequently their views could be discounted. Royalists who asserted that French kings had special privileges always stopped short of revealing their sources, for, in truth, ‘ne pouvoir estre excommunié d’aucun, mesme du pape, n’est pas un privilege duqu’el un chrestien et baptisé soit capable’. Analysis of Rozée’s exploration of sources regarding the 1591 controversy has vindicated Valois’ 1914 observations: Rozée drew on a range of sources (and source-types) from both sides of a major debate. At the same time he has treated them unevenly – Zampini was named whilst royalist polemicists were not, and the presentation of the Italian’s views occupied three times the number of words devoted to the collective views of Faye,