Chapter 2: The Work During its protracted emergence from obscurity the text that came to absorb Charles interest was given several titles. In 1897 Arthur de Boislisle referred to that part of Valois’ the work contained in ms. 10270 as a Journal. In the previous year the fragment had been catalogued under the title Journal historique du temps de la Ligue. Earlier still, someone had scribbled on the To complicate matters, we find that ‘un recueil…’ document’s cover. the only manuscripts containing the whole (copied) text (mss 23295-96 in the fonds français of the Bibliothèque nationale) carry the words Hist. de la Ligue on their covers; the same four words (with Hist. now expanded to Histoire) appear also at the head of the first side of writing. Thus, before Valois, several titles had been given to the same work: In 1908 Valois wrote a short piece Journal Journal. Histoire… Recueil… historique… introducing the work as Une histoire inédite de la contemporain Ligue: œuvre d’un a title which he refined in 1914 to read anonyme Histoire de la – Ligue: œuvre inédite d’un Robert is short and pleasing to contemporain. Histoire anonyme Descimon’s wording – – the ear; but for reasons that will become clear in the next chapter, I will be referring to the work as simply the Histoire. Happily, the has been more appreciated in recent years. In the 1970s Peter Ascoli Histoire judged it to be by far the most informative source on the siege; J.H.M. Salmon identified neglect of the work as one of the reasons for understanding of the Seize, historians’ limited and Denis Pallier found it valuable on points of detail. Later, Philip Benedict acclaimed this as of the best sources available on the League in the In ‘anonymous work’ ‘one provinces’. 1983, Robert Descimon consulted this in his ground-breaking analysis ‘remarquable texte’ of the leadership group in the Paris Pierre Chevallier found the work indispensable Ligue.
Chapter 2: The Work During its protracted emergence from obscurity the text that came to absorb Charles Valois’ interest was given several titles. In 1897 Arthur de Boislisle referred to that part of the work contained in ms. 10270 as a Journal. In the previous year the fragment had been catalogued under the title Journal historique du temps de la Ligue. Earlier still, someone had scribbled ‘un recueil…’ on the document’s cover. To complicate matters, we find that the only manuscripts containing the whole (copied) text (mss 23295-96 in the fonds français of the Bibliothèque nationale) carry the words Hist. de la Ligue on their covers; the same four words (with Hist. now expanded to Histoire) appear also at the head of the first side of writing. Thus, before Valois, several titles had been given to the same work: Histoire… Recueil… Journal historique… Journal. In 1908 Valois wrote a short piece introducing the work as Une histoire inédite de la Ligue: œuvre d’un contemporain anonyme – a title which he refined in 1914 to read Histoire de la Ligue: œuvre inédite d’un contemporain. Robert Descimon’s wording – Histoire anonyme – is short and pleasing to the ear; but for reasons that will become clear in the next chapter, I will be referring to the work as simply the Histoire. Happily, the Histoire has been more appreciated in recent years. In the 1970s Peter Ascoli judged it to be by far the most informative source on the siege; J.H.M. Salmon identified neglect of the work as one of the reasons for historians’ limited understanding of the Seize, and Denis Pallier found it valuable on points of detail. Later, Philip Benedict acclaimed this ‘anonymous work’ as ‘one of the best sources available on the League in the provinces’. In 1983, Robert Descimon consulted this ‘remarquable texte’ in his ground-breaking analysis of the leadership group in the Paris Ligue. Pierre Chevallier found the work indispensable