Chapter 3: The Historian Lost to view along with the manuscript was its author until Charles Valois placed the spotlight on the former and found he could make some deductions also about the latter. His reading of the led him to believe that its author was neither born into nor bound by Histoire allegiance to any great family. He was well read, and he knew Latin and Italian. He thought and wrote like a cleric, from time to time lamenting the licence of the times, but he was not necessarily a man of the cloth, for de laics... parlaient, à cette époque, la même langue ‘tant que les A Parisian, he no doubt helped defend the city walls yet, as noted in the prêtres’. – previous chapter, he was surely no professional soldier. Valois noted that the historian was well acquainted with the Palais and he believed that he probably worked there, perhaps as a or he also considered it likely that the historian was a member of the secrétaire greffier; Oratoire. As noted in chapter 2, by the time Valois encountered the others had already Histoire – long before surmised that its author was perhaps Pierre de or Louis – L’Estoile, Maimbourg. Valois was unimpressed. The idea that had penned the Histoire L’Estoile could be dismissed at once: such a resolute defence of the could hardly have come Ligue from a staunchly Politique writer. In any case, the earliest part of the original text of which mss 23295-96 were a copy had been composed (at the earliest) in 1616, five years after death. For similar reasons Valois could dismiss Maimbourg the L’Estoile’s – century Jesuit historian had considered to have been dangerous enemies; Ligueurs moreover the early part of the (350 pages at least) had been composed at the latest Histoire by 3 August 1621 when Maimbourg was eleven. –
Chapter 3: The Historian Lost to view along with the manuscript was its author until Charles Valois placed the spotlight on the former and found he could make some deductions also about the latter. His reading of the Histoire led him to believe that its author was neither born into nor bound by allegiance to any great family. He was well read, and he knew Latin and Italian. He thought and wrote like a cleric, from time to time lamenting the licence of the times, but he was not necessarily a man of the cloth, for ‘tant de laics... parlaient, à cette époque, la même langue que les prêtres’. A Parisian, he no doubt helped defend the city walls – yet, as noted in the previous chapter, he was surely no professional soldier. Valois noted that the historian was well acquainted with the Palais and he believed that he probably worked there, perhaps as a secrétaire or greffier; he also considered it likely that the historian was a member of the Oratoire. As noted in chapter 2, by the time Valois encountered the Histoire others had already – long before – surmised that its author was perhaps Pierre de L’Estoile, or Louis Maimbourg. Valois was unimpressed. The idea that L’Estoile had penned the Histoire could be dismissed at once: such a resolute defence of the Ligue could hardly have come from a staunchly Politique writer. In any case, the earliest part of the original text of which mss 23295-96 were a copy had been composed (at the earliest) in 1616, five years after L’Estoile’s death. For similar reasons Valois could dismiss Maimbourg – the Jesuit historian had considered Ligueurs to have been dangerous enemies; moreover the early part of the Histoire (350 pages at least) had been composed at the latest by 3 August 1621 – when Maimbourg was eleven. century