Unable in 1914 to lift the mask of anonymity, Valois was nonetheless able to demonstrate convincingly that the writer had penned his work in in 1620 or shortly after. Possibly a man of the cloth but more probably a lawyer using good French but lengthy and – sometimes laboured sentences the writer had been above all well-read. Valois discovered – that his seventeenth-century predecessor had used a wide range of material: the well-known contemporary histories, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as al decrees, declarations, letters, speeches and dialogues. traced the deployment of these sources attentively, arrêts, passing judgement along the way, and noting with enthusiasm what was The ‘new’. ‘new’ included a written by Henri de Guise to Pope Sixtus V in late 1588, letter, ‘peu connue’, and, les annales militaires du Mans, de Melun, de Sens et de Paris, pour du ‘pour l’histoire duc de Mayenne, de Jean Boucher, du parti des Zélés et de celui des Politiques, plusieurs sources importantes, jusqu’à présent ignorées’. As for the views, we soon find ourselves in the company of a man who well writer’s reminds us of those bourgeois who had carried the argument against Dominique Ligueurs de Vic and François It was view that the constituted the best defence Histoire d’O. Valois’ of the Catholic le plus complet et plus to have been written Ligue – ‘le plaidoyer sérieux’ – in three centuries. The moderate nature of its affiliation was obvious from Ligue writer’s the way he had closed his account. By ending with Henry triumphant entry into , he IV’s had managed to conceal of the civil war, convulsions sanglantes ‘la phase injustifiable’ ‘les de de la The writer had lamented the fact that many Catholics had been l’agonie Ligue’. concerned more with worldly success than with spiritual wealth. He had respected the papacy but had had no compunction about criticising Sixtus V. Robust in his dislike of
Unable in 1914 to lift the mask of anonymity, Valois was nonetheless able to demonstrate convincingly that the writer had penned his work in in 1620 or shortly after. Possibly a man of the cloth but more probably a lawyer – using good French but lengthy and sometimes laboured sentences – the writer had been above all well-read. Valois discovered that his seventeenth-century predecessor had used a wide range of material: the well-known contemporary histories, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as al decrees, declarations, letters, arrêts, speeches and dialogues. traced the deployment of these sources attentively, passing judgement along the way, and noting with enthusiasm what was ‘new’. The ‘new’ included a letter, ‘peu connue’, written by Henri de Guise to Pope Sixtus V in late 1588, and, ‘pour les annales militaires du Mans, de Melun, de Sens et de Paris, pour l’histoire du duc de Mayenne, de Jean Boucher, du parti des Zélés et de celui des Politiques, plusieurs sources importantes, jusqu’à présent ignorées’. As for the writer’s views, we soon find ourselves in the company of a man who well reminds us of those bourgeois Ligueurs who had carried the argument against Dominique de Vic and François d’O. It was Valois’ view that the Histoire constituted the best defence of the Catholic Ligue – ‘le plaidoyer le plus complet et plus sérieux’ – to have been written in three centuries. The moderate nature of its writer’s Ligue affiliation was obvious from the way he had closed his account. By ending with Henry IV’s triumphant entry into , he had managed to conceal ‘la phase injustifiable’ of the civil war, ‘les convulsions sanglantes de l’agonie de la Ligue’. The writer had lamented the fact that many Catholics had been concerned more with worldly success than with spiritual wealth. He had respected the papacy but had had no compunction about criticising Sixtus V. Robust in his dislike of