Are we dealing with the view of an individual or with widely held opinion? And again, was Rozée listening to or reading a are we dealing here with ce que ‘on dit’? Put simply, one, two or three texts or none? On this occasion it turns out that the unnamed man qui a – was Jacques-Auguste de Thou, and that we are dealing with written text. But médit elsewhere (also refers to spoken rumour, hearsay and we will dire parler, discourir…) – find that what Rozée heard was an important source. Meanwhile, more problems arise from the example above. Why did the historian not name de Thou? Was it out of respect for a renowned author with whom he was about to disagree? Had he simply forgotten where he had read the story? Why did Rozée name some contemporary writers but not others, and why in some cases did his practice vary regarding individual authors? Comparison of – – account of the Normandy episode with de another difficulty: it Rozée’s Thou’s raises becomes obvious that the point of account was to take issue with de Rozée’s Thou’s claim that for a brief interval Chicot managed to hold Chaligny prisoner. ‘Pour estre creu,’ observed Rozée, falloit rendre le conte probable et monstrer comment un homme blessé ‘il coup mortel a la teste en avoit pu prendre un autre prisonnier qui blessé d’un n’estoit qu’en la This observation is encouraging we are dealing with an author who took the jambe.’ – trouble to interrogate his sources but it also raises the question of the extent to which the – source selection was driven by the desire to correct perceived historian’s misrepresentations, especially any that might taint the reputation of the (or of Sainte Union the house of Lorraine, from whom Chaligny issued). There is throughout the text a remarkable clustering of sources around key controversies. Was text merely Rozée’s reactive? Would he have written if others had not done so first? Given his handling of the Chicot-Chaligny encounter, we will need to consider how often and how subtly he adapted the material at his disposal, and for what reasons? And why did he write about what could
Are we dealing with the view of an individual or with widely held opinion? And again, was Rozée listening to or reading ce que ‘on a dit’? Put simply, are we dealing here with one, two or three texts – or none? On this occasion it turns out that the unnamed man qui a médit was Jacques-Auguste de Thou, and that we are dealing with written text. But elsewhere dire (also parler, discourir…) refers to spoken rumour, hearsay – and we will find that what Rozée heard was an important source. Meanwhile, more problems arise from the example above. Why did the historian not name de Thou? Was it out of respect for a renowned author with whom he was about to disagree? Had he simply forgotten where he had read the story? Why did Rozée name some contemporary writers but not others, and why – in some cases – did his practice vary regarding individual authors? Comparison of Rozée’s account of the Normandy episode with de Thou’s raises another difficulty: it becomes obvious that the point of Rozée’s account was to take issue with de Thou’s claim that for a brief interval Chicot managed to hold Chaligny prisoner. ‘Pour estre creu,’ observed Rozée, ‘il falloit rendre le conte probable et monstrer comment un homme blessé d’un coup mortel a la teste en avoit pu prendre un autre prisonnier qui n’estoit blessé qu’en la jambe.’ This observation is encouraging – we are dealing with an author who took the trouble to interrogate his sources – but it also raises the question of the extent to which the historian’s source selection was driven by the desire to correct perceived misrepresentations, especially any that might taint the reputation of the Sainte Union (or of the house of Lorraine, from whom Chaligny issued). There is throughout the text a remarkable clustering of sources around key controversies. Was Rozée’s text merely reactive? Would he have written if others had not done so first? Given his handling of the Chicot-Chaligny encounter, we will need to consider how often and how subtly he adapted the material at his disposal, and for what reasons? And why did he write about what could