writing: the accounts differ on which day the legate received his visitors, and the pamphlet supplies no names of his companions. Given his disappointment with the pope it is uncertain in any case that Rozée would have enjoyed reading it: its text constituted ‘preuves de du pape pour Palma-Cayet, de Thou: none of l’affection l’Union’. L’Estoile, d’Aubigné, these authors not even all of them cumulatively provided the dense detail of the – – Nor did the registers from the Hôtel de Ville. Histoire. After the it was down to business on the Monday, as the legate weekend’s celebrations, began meetings with the dukes of Mayenne and Nemours. Rozée noted, perhaps with some pride, that amongst the visitors were docteurs de la theologie et les principaux des ‘les these men informed Caetani of the that beset the capital. Then, on Seize’; ‘peu d’ordre’ Friday 26 January, the legate presented to the Parlement sitting in Paris the bull issued in Rome in September 1589 whereby the pope authorised him to exercise a range of ministries in France. Registration of the bull ensued in early February and the event was marked at once by pamphlets on sale in Paris and Lyon. Due process mattered to our avocat-author. He noted that Caetani needed the of his activities, and that in addition to court’s sanction considering the bull, along with a separate document stating the mandate, the legate’s magistrates paid attention both to letters they had recently received from the pope and to spoken Thus, it was with ample evidence and harangue. Caetani’s ‘aprez mûre that the magistrates moved to registration. There is little doubt that Rozée was deliberation’ glad of performance before the judges; it is evident from what he included in Caetani’s – and omitted from his narrative. He noted that the letters commended the legate for – pope’s religion, integrité, dexterité au maniment des afaires les plus serieuses d'un Etat, pour la ‘sa grandeur de sa maison et de sa noblesse, de son sçavoir et de son bon He jugement’.
writing: the accounts differ on which day the legate received his visitors, and the pamphlet supplies no names of his companions. Given his disappointment with the pope it is uncertain in any case that Rozée would have enjoyed reading it: its text constituted ‘preuves de l’affection du pape pour l’Union’. L’Estoile, d’Aubigné, Palma-Cayet, de Thou: none of these authors – not even all of them cumulatively – provided the dense detail of the Histoire. Nor did the registers from the Hôtel de Ville. After the weekend’s celebrations, it was down to business on the Monday, as the legate began meetings with the dukes of Mayenne and Nemours. Rozée noted, perhaps with some pride, that amongst the visitors were ‘les docteurs de la theologie et les principaux des Seize’; these men informed Caetani of the ‘peu d’ordre’ that beset the capital. Then, on Friday 26 January, the legate presented to the Parlement sitting in Paris the bull issued in Rome in September 1589 whereby the pope authorised him to exercise a range of ministries in France. Registration of the bull ensued in early February and the event was marked at once by pamphlets on sale in Paris and Lyon. Due process mattered to our avocat-author. He noted that Caetani needed the court’s sanction of his activities, and that in addition to considering the bull, along with a separate document stating the legate’s mandate, the magistrates paid attention both to letters they had recently received from the pope and to Caetani’s spoken harangue. Thus, it was with ample evidence and ‘aprez mûre deliberation’ that the magistrates moved to registration. There is little doubt that Rozée was glad of Caetani’s performance before the judges; it is evident from what he included in – and omitted from – his narrative. He noted that the pope’s letters commended the legate for ‘sa religion, integrité, dexterité au maniment des afaires les plus serieuses d'un Etat, pour la grandeur de sa maison et de sa noblesse, de son sçavoir et de son bon jugement’. He