Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet Vol. 1 of 13 - containing an account of the cruel civil wars between the - houses of Orleans and Burgundy
Author: Monstrelet, Enguerrand de
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet Vol. 1 of 13 - containing an account of the cruel civil wars between the - houses of Orleans and Burgundy" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



                                  THE

                               CHRONICLES

                                   OF

                       ENGUERRAND DE MONSTRELET.



------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                  THE

                               CHRONICLES

                                   OF

                       ENGUERRAND DE MONSTRELET;

                               CONTAINING

        AN ACCOUNT OF THE CRUEL CIVIL WARS BETWEEN THE HOUSES OF

                          OF THE POSSESSION OF
                   PARIS AND NORMANDY BY THE ENGLISH;

                       _THEIR EXPULSION THENCE;_

                              AND OF OTHER
        MEMORABLE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED IN THE KINGDOM OF FRANCE,
                     AS WELL AS IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

         _A HISTORY OF FAIR EXAMPLE, AND OF GREAT PROFIT TO THE
                                FRENCH,_

     _Beginning at the Year MCCCC. where that of Sir JOHN FROISSART
       finishes, and ending at the Year MCCCCLXVII. and continued
                     by others to the Year MDXVI._

                               TRANSLATED

                         BY THOMAS JOHNES, ESQ.

                    IN THIRTEEN VOLUMES ... VOL. I.

                                LONDON:

  PRINTED FOR LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, AND BROWN, PATERNOSTER-ROW;
                   AND J. WHITE AND CO. FLEET-STREET.

                                 1810.



------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                   TO

                               HIS GRACE

                        _JOHN DUKE OF BEDFORD_,

                             _&c. &c. &c._


  MY LORD,

I am happy in this opportunity of dedicating the CHRONICLES OF
MONSTRELET to your grace, to show my high respect for your many virtues,
public and private, and the value I set on the honour of your grace’s
friendship.

One of MONSTRELET’S principal characters was JOHN DUKE OF BEDFORD,
regent of France; and your grace has fully displayed your abilities, as
regent, to be at least equal to those of your namesake, in the milder
and more valuable virtues. Those of a hero may dazzle in this life; but
the others are, I trust, recorded in a better place; and your late wise,
although, unfortunately, short government of Ireland will be long and
thankfully remembered by a gallant and warm-hearted people.

                                          I have the honour to remain,

                                            Your grace’s much obliged,

                                              Humble servant and friend,

                                                  _Thomas Johnes_.

    _CASTLE-HILL_,
  _March 13, 1808_.

------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                CONTENTS

                                   OF

                          _THE FIRST VOLUME_.


                                                          PAGE

          The prologue                                       1

                                CHAP. I.

          How Charles the well-beloved reigned in France,
            after he had been crowned at Rheims, in the
            year thirteen hundred and eighty                 7

                               CHAP. II.

          An esquire of Arragon, named Michel d’Orris,
            sends challenges to England. The answer he
            receives from a knight of that country          13

                               CHAP. III.

          Great pardons granted at Rome                     38

                               CHAP. IV.

          John of Montfort, duke of Brittany, dies. The
            emperor departs from Paris. Isabella queen of
            England returns to France                       39

                                CHAP. V.

          The duke of Burgundy, by orders from the king
            of France, goes into Brittany, and the duke
            of Orleans to Luxembourg. A quarrel ensues
            between them                                    42

                               CHAP. VI.

          Clement duke of Bavaria is elected emperor of
            Germany, and afterward conducted with a
            numerous retinue to Frankfort                   45

                               CHAP. VII.

          Henry of Lancaster, king of England, combats
            the Percies and Welshmen, who had invaded his
            kingdom, and defeats them                       47

                              CHAP. VIII.

          John de Verchin, a knight of great renown, and
            seneschal of Hainault, sends, by his herald,
            a challenge into divers countries, proposing
            a deed of arms                                  49

                               CHAP. IX.

          The duke of Orleans, brother to the king of
            France, sends a challenge to the king of
            England. The answer he receives                 55

                                CHAP. X.

          Waleran count de Saint Pol sends a challenge to
            the king of England                             84

                               CHAP. XI.

          Concerning the sending of sir James de Bourbon,
            count de la Marche, and his two brothers, by
            orders from the king of France, to the
            assistance of the Welsh, and other matters      87

                               CHAP. XII.

          The admiral of Brittany, with other lords,
            fights the English at sea. Gilbert de Fretun
            makes war against king Henry                    89

                              CHAP. XIII.

          The university of Paris quarrels with sir
            Charles de Savoisy and with the provost of
            Paris                                           91

                               CHAP. XIV.

          The seneschal of Hainault performs a deed of
            arms with three others, in the presence of
            the king of Arragon. The admiral of Brittany
            undertakes an expedition against England        95

                               CHAP. XV.

          The marshal of France and the master of the
            cross-bows, by orders from the king of
            France, go to England, to the assistance of
            the prince of Wales                            103

                               CHAP. XVI.

          A powerful infidel, called Tamerlane, invades
            the kingdom of the king Bajazet, who marches
            against and fights with him                    106

                              CHAP. XVII.

          Charles king of Navarre negotiates with the
            king of France, and obtains the duchy of
            Nemours. Duke Philip of Burgundy makes a
            journey to Bar-le-Duc and to Brussels          108

                              CHAP. XVIII.

          The duke of Burgundy dies in the town of Halle,
            in Hainault. His body is carried to the
            Carthusian convent at Dijon, in Burgundy       110

                               CHAP. XIX.

          Waleran count de St Pol lands a large force on
            the Isle of Wight, to make war against
            England, but returns without having performed
            any great deeds                                114

                               CHAP. XX.

          Louis duke of Orleans is sent by the king to
            the pope at Marseilles. The duke of Bourbon
            is ordered into Languedoc, and the constable
            into Acquitaine                                116

                               CHAP. XXI.

          The death of duke Albert, count of Hainault,
            and of Margaret duchess of Burgundy, daughter
            to Louis earl of Flanders                      120

                              CHAP. XXII.

          John duke of Burgundy, after the death of the
            duchess Margaret, is received by the
            principal towns in Flanders as their lord      122

                              CHAP. XXIII.

          Duke William count of Hainault presides at a
            combat for life or death, in his town of
            Quesnoy, in which one of the champions is
            slain                                          124

                              CHAP. XXIV.

          The count de St Pol marches an army before the
            castle of Mercq, where the English from
            Calais meet and discomfit him                  126

                               CHAP. XXV.

          John duke of Burgundy goes to Paris, and causes
            the dauphin and queen to return thither, whom
            the duke of Orleans was carrying off, with
            other matters                                  136

                              CHAP. XXVI.

          Duke John of Burgundy obtains from the king of
            France the government of Picardy. An embassy
            from England to France. An account of Clugnet
            de Brabant, knight                             157

                              CHAP. XXVII.

          The war is renewed between the dukes of Bar and
            Lorraine. Marriages concluded at Compiegne.
            An alliance between the dukes of Orleans and
            Burgundy                                       161

                             CHAP. XXVIII.

          The duke of Orleans, by the king’s orders,
            marches a powerful army to Acquitaine, and
            besieges Blay and le Bourg                     167

                              CHAP. XXIX.

          The duke of Burgundy prevails on the king of
            France and his council, that he may have
            permission to assemble men at arms to besiege
            Calais                                         169

                               CHAP. XXX.

          The prelates and clergy of France are summoned
            to attend the king at Paris, on the subject
            of an union of the church                      174

                              CHAP. XXXI.

          The Liegeois eject their bishop, John of
            Bavaria, for refusing to be consecrated as a
            churchman, according to his promise            176

                              CHAP. XXXII.

          Anthony duke of Limbourg takes possession of
            that duchy, and afterward of the town of
            Maestricht, to the great displeasure of the
            Liegeois                                       179

                             CHAP. XXXIII.

          Ambassadors from pope Gregory arrive at Paris,
            with bulls from the pope to the king and
            university of Paris                            182

                              CHAP. XXXIV.

          The duke of Orleans receives the duchy of
            Acquitaine, as a present, from the king of
            France. A truce concluded between England and
            France                                         188

                              CHAP. XXXV.

          The prince of Wales, accompanied by his two
            uncles, marches a considerable force to wage
            war against the Scots                          189

                              CHAP. XXXVI.

          The duke of Orleans, only brother to Charles
            VI. the well beloved, king of France, is
            inhumanly assassinated in the town of Paris    191

                             CHAP. XXXVII.

          The duchess of Orleans with her youngest son
            wait on the king in Paris, to make complaint
            of the cruel murder of the late duke her
            husband                                        206

                             CHAP. XXXVIII.

          The duke of Burgundy assembles a number of his
            dependants, at Lille in Flanders, to a
            council, respecting the death of the duke of
            Orleans. He goes to Amiens, and thence to
            Paris                                          211

                              CHAP. XXXIX.

          The duke of Burgundy offers his justification,
            for having caused the death of the duke of
            Orleans, in the presence of the king and his
            great council                                  220

                               CHAP. XL.

          The king of France sends a solemn embassy to
            the pope. The answer they receive. The pope
            excommunicates the king and his adherents      302

                               CHAP. XLI.

          The university of Paris declares against the
            pope della Luna, in the presence of the king
            of France. King Louis of Sicily leaves Paris.
            Of the borgne de la Heuse                      315

                              CHAP. XLII.

          The duke of Burgundy departs from Paris, on
            account of the affairs of Liege. The king of
            Spain combats the saracen fleet. The king of
            Hungary writes to the university of Paris      320

                              CHAP. XLIII.

          How all the prelates and clergy of France were
            summoned to Paris. The arrival of the queen
            and of the duchess of Orleans                  325

                              CHAP. XLIV.

          The duchess-dowager of Orleans and her son
            cause a public answer to be made, at Paris,
            to the charges of the duke of Burgundy
            against the late duke of Orleans, and
            challenge the duke of Burgundy for his murder  331

------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                  THE

                         _LIFE OF MONSTRELET_.


Materials for the biography of Monstrelet are still more scanty than for
that of Froissart. The most satisfactory account, both of his life and
of the continuators of his history, is contained in the Memoires de
l’Académie de Belles Lettres, vol. XLIII. p. 535. by M. Dacier.

‘We are ignorant of the birthplace of Enguerrand de Monstrelet, and of
the period when he was born, as well as of the names of his parents. All
we know is, that he sprang from a noble family,—which he takes care to
tell us himself, in his introduction to the first volume of the
chronicles; and his testimony is confirmed by a variety of original
deeds, in which his name is always accompanied with the distinction of
‘noble man,’ or ‘esquire.[1]’

‘According to the historian of the Cambresis, Monstrelet was descended
from a noble family settled in Ponthieu from the beginning of the
twelfth century, where one of his ancestors, named Enguerrand, possessed
the estate of Monstrelet in the year 1125,—but Carpentier does not name
his authority for this. A contemporary historian (Matthieu de Couci, of
whom I shall have occasion to speak in the course of this essay,) who
lived at Peronne, and who seems to have been personally acquainted with
Monstrelet, positively asserts that this historian was a native of the
county of the Boulonnois, without precisely mentioning the place of his
birth. This authority ought to weigh much: besides, Ponthieu and the
Boulonnois are so near to each other that a mistake on this point might
easily have happened. It results, from what these two writers say, that
we may fix his birthplace in Picardy.

‘M. l’abbé Carlier, however, in his history of the duchy of Valois,
claims this honour for his province, wherein he has discovered an
ancient family of the same name,—a branch of which, he pretends, settled
in the Cambresis, and he believes that from this branch sprung
Enguerrand de Monstrelet. This opinion is advanced without proof, and
the work of Monstrelet itself is sufficient to destroy it. He shows so
great an affection for Picardy, in divers parts of his chronicle, that
we cannot doubt of his being strongly attached to it: he is better
acquainted with it than with any other parts of the realm: he enters
into the fullest details concerning it: he frequently gives the names of
such picard gentlemen, whether knights or esquires, as had been engaged
in any battle, which he omits to do in regard to the nobility of other
countries,—in the latter case, naming only the chief commanders. It is
almost always from the bailiff of Amiens that he reports the royal
edicts, letters missive, and ordinances, &c. which abound in the two
first volumes. In short, he speaks of the Picards with so much interest,
and relates their gallant actions with such pleasure, that it clearly
appears that he treats them like countrymen.

‘Monstrelet was a nobleman then, and a nobleman of Picardy; but we have
good reason to suspect that his birth was not spotless. John le Robert,
abbot of St Aubert in Cambray from the year 1432 to that of 1469, and
author of an exact journal of every thing that passed during his time in
the town of Cambray and its environs, under the title of ‘Memoriaux,’[2]
says plainly, ‘_qu’il fut né de bas_,’—which term, according to the
glossary of du Cange, and in the opinion of learned genealogists,
constantly means a natural son; for at this period, bastards were
acknowledged according to the rank of their fathers. Monstrelet,
therefore, was not the less noble; and the same John le Robert qualifies
him, two lines higher, with the titles of ‘noble man’ and ‘esquire,’ to
which he adds an eulogium, which I shall hereafter mention,—because, at
the same time that it does honour to Monstrelet, it confirms the opinion
I had formed of his character when attentively reading his work.

‘My researches to discover the precise year of his birth have been
fruitless. I believe, however, it may be safely placed prior to the
close of the fourteenth century; for, besides speaking of events at the
beginning of the fifteenth as having happened in his time, he states
positively, in his introduction, that he had been told of the early
events in his book (namely, from the year 1400,) by persons worthy of
credit, who had been eye-witnesses of them. To this proof, or to this
deduction, I shall add, that under the year 1415, he says, that he heard
(_at the time_) of the anger of the count de Charolois, afterwards
Philippe le bon duke of Burgundy, because his governors would not permit
him to take part in the battle of Azincourt. I shall also add, that
under the year 1420, he speaks of the homage which John duke of Burgundy
paid the king of the Romans for the counties of Burgundy and of Alost.
It cannot be supposed that he would have inquired into such particulars,
or that any one would have taken the trouble to inform him of them if he
had not been of a certain age, such as twenty or twenty-five years old,
which would fix the date of his birth about 1390 or 1395.

‘No particulars of his early years are known, except that he evinced,
when young, a love for application, and a dislike to indolence. The
quotations from Sallust, Livy, Vegetius, and other ancient authors, that
occur in his chronicles, show that he must have made some progress in
latin literature. Whether his love for study was superior to his desire
of military glory, or whether a weakly constitution or some other
reason, prevented him from following the profession of arms, I do not
find that he yielded to the reigning passion of his age, when the names
of gentleman and of soldier were almost synonimous.

‘The wish to avoid indolence by collecting the events of his time, which
he testifies in the introduction to his chronicles, proves, I think,
that he was but a tranquil spectator of them. Had he been an Armagnac or
a Burgundian, he would not have had occasion to seek for solitary
occupations; but what proves more strongly that Monstrelet was not of
either faction is the care he takes to inform his readers of the rank,
quality, and often of the names of the persons from whose report he
writes, without ever boasting of his own testimony. In his whole work,
he speaks but once from his own knowledge, when he relates the manner in
which the Pucelle d’Orléans was made prisoner before Compiégne; but he
does not say, that he was present at the skirmish when this unfortunate
heroine was taken: he gives us to understand the contrary, and that he
was only present at the conversation of the prisoner with the duke of
Burgundy,—for he had accompanied Philip on this expedition, perhaps in
quality of historian. And why may not we presume that he may have done
so on other occasions, to be nearer at hand to collect the real state of
facts which he intended to relate?

‘However this may be, it is certain that he was resident in Cambray,
when he composed his history, and passed there the remainder of his
life. He was indeed fixed there, as I shall hereafter state, by
different important employments, each of which required the residence of
him who enjoyed them. From his living in Cambray, La Croix du Maine has
concluded, without further examination, that he was born there, and this
mistake has been copied by other writers.

‘Monstrelet was married to Jeanne de Valbuon, or Valhuon, and had
several children by her, although only two of them were known,—a
daughter called Bona, married to Martin de Beulaincourt, a gentleman of
that country, surnamed the Bold, and a son of the name of Pierre. It is
probable, that Bona was married, or of age, prior to the year 1438,—for
in the register of the officiality of Cambray, towards the end of that
year, is an entry, that Enguerrand de Monstrelet was appointed guardian
to his young son Pierre, without any mention of his daughter Bona. It
follows, therefore, that Monstrelet was a widower at that period.

‘In the year 1436, Monstrelet was nominated to the office of Lieutenant
du Gavènier of the Cambresis, conjointly with Le Bon de Saveuses, master
of the horse to the duke of Burgundy, as appears from the letters patent
to this effect, addressed by the duke to his nephew the count
d’Estampes, of the date of the 13th May in this year, and which are
preserved in the chartulary of the church of Cambray.

‘It is even supposed that Monstrelet had for some time enjoyed this
office,—for it is therein declared, that he shall continue in the
receipt of the Gavène, as he has heretofore done, until this present
time. ‘Gave,’ or ‘Gavène,’ (I speak from the papers I have just quoted,)
signifies in Flemish, a gift, or a present. It was an annual due payable
to the duke of Burgundy, by the subjects of the churches in the
Cambresis, for his protection of them as earl of Flanders. From the name
of the tribute was formed that of Gavènier, which was often given to the
duke of Burgundy, and the nobleman he appointed his deputy was styled
Lieutenant du Gavènier. I have said ‘the nobleman whom he appointed,’
because in the list of those lieutenants, which the historian of Cambray
has published, there is not one who has not shown sufficient proofs of
nobility. Such was, therefore, the employment with which Monstrelet was
invested; and shortly after, another office was added to it, that of
Bailiff to the chapter of Cambray, for which he took the oaths on the
20th of June, 1436, and entered that day on its duties. He kept this
place until the beginning of January, in the year 1440, when another was
appointed.

‘I have mentioned Pierre de Monstrelet, his son; and it is probable that
he is the person who was made a knight of St John of Jerusalem in the
month of July, in 1444, although the acts of the chapter of Cambray do
not confirm this opinion, nor specify the Christian name of the new
knight by that of Pierre. It is only declared in the register, that the
canons, as an especial favour, on the 6th of July, permitted Enguerrand
de Monstrelet, esquire, to have his son invested with the order of St
John of Jerusalem, on Sunday the 19th of the same month, in the choir of
their church.

‘The respect and consideration which he had now acquired, gained him the
dignity of governor of Cambray, for which he took the usual oath on the
9th of November; and on the 12th of March, in the following year, he was
nominated bailiff of Wallaincourt. He retained both of these places
until his death, which happened about the middle of July, in the year
1453. This date cannot be disputed: it was discovered in the 17th
century by John le Carpentier, who has inserted it in his history of the
Cambresis. But in consequence of little attention being paid to this
work, or because the common opinion has been blindly followed, that
Monstrelet had continued his history to the death of the duke of
Burgundy in 1467, this date was not considered as true until the
publication of an extract from the register of the Cordeliers in
Cambray, where he was buried.[3] Although this extract fully establishes
the year and month when Monstrelet died, I shall insert here what
relates to it from the ‘Memoriaux’ of John le Robert, before mentioned,
because they contain some circumstances that are not to be found in the
register of the Cordeliers. When several years of his history are to be
retrenched from an historian of such credit, authorities for so doing
cannot be too much multiplied. This is the text of the abbot of St
Aubert, and I have put in italics the words that are not in the
register:

        “The 20th day of July, in the year 1453, that honourable
        and noble man Enguerrand de Monstrelet, esquire,
        governor of Cambray, and bailiff of Wallaincourt,
        departed this life, and was buried at the Cordeliers of
        Cambray, according to his desire. He was carried thither
        on a bier covered with a mat, clothed in the frock of a
        cordelier friar, his face uncovered: six flambeaux and
        three chirons, each weighing three quarters of a pound,
        were around the bier, whereon was _a sheet thrown over_
        the cordelier frock. _Il fut nez de bas_, and was a very
        honourable and _peaceable_ man. He chronicled the wars
        which took place in his time in France, Artois, Picardy,
        England, Flanders, and those of the Gantois against
        their lord duke Philip. He died fifteen or sixteen days
        before peace was concluded, which took place toward the
        end of July, in the year 1453.”

‘I shall observe, by the way, that the person who drew up this register
assigns two different dates for the death of Monstrelet, and in this he
has been followed by John le Robert. Both of them say, that Monstrelet
died on the 20th of July,—and, a few lines farther, add, that he died
about sixteen days before peace was concluded between duke Philip and
Ghent, which was signed about the end of the month: it was, in fact,
concluded on the 31st: now, from twenty to thirty-one, we can only
reckon eleven days,—and I therefore think, that one of these dates must
mean the day of his death, and the other that of his funeral,—namely,
that Monstrelet died on the 15th and was buried on the 20th. The precise
date of his death is, however, of little importance: it is enough for us
to be assured, that it took place in the month of July, in 1453, and
consequently that the thirteen last years of his history, printed under
his name, cannot have been written by him. I shall examine this first
continuation of his history, and endeavour to ascertain the time when
Monstrelet ceased to write,—and likewise attempt to discover whether,
during the years immediately preceding his death, some things have not
been inserted that do not belong to him.

‘Before I enter upon this discussion of his work, I shall conclude what
I have to say of him personally, according to what the writer of the
register of the Cordeliers and the abbot of St Aubert testify of him. He
was, says each of them, ‘a very honourable and peaceable man;’
expressions that appear simple at first sight, but which contain a real
eulogium, if we consider the troublesome times in which Monstrelet
lived, the places he held, the interest he must have had sometimes to
betray the truth in favour of one of the factions which then divided
France, and caused the revolutions the history of which he has published
during the life of the principal actors. I have had more than one
occasion to ascertain that the two above-mentioned writers, in thus
painting his character, have not flattered him.

‘The Chronicles of Monstrelet commence on Easter-day,[4] in the year
1400, when those of Froissart end, and extend to the death of the duke
of Burgundy in the year 1467. I have before stated, that the thirteen
last years of his chronicle were written by an unknown author,—and this
matter I shall discuss at the end of this essay. In the printed as well
as in the manuscript copies, the chronicle is divided into three
volumes, and each volume into chapters. The first of these divisions is
evidently by the author: his prologues at the head of the first and
second volumes, in which he marks the extent of each conformable to the
number of years therein contained, leave no room to doubt of it.

‘His work is called Chronicles; but we must not, however, consider this
title in the sense commonly attached to it, which merely conveys the
idea of simple annals. The chronicles of Monstrelet are real history,
wherein, notwithstanding its imperfections and omissions, are found all
the characteristics of historical writing. He traces events to their
source, developes the causes, and traces them with the minutest details;
and what renders these chronicles infinitely precious is, his
never-failing attention to report all edicts, declarations, summonses,
letters, negotiations, treaties, &c. as justificatory proofs of the
truth of the facts he relates.

‘After the example of Froissart, he does not confine himself to events
that passed in France: he embraces, with almost equal detail, the most
remarkable circumstances which happened during his time in Flanders,
England, Scotland and Ireland. He relates, but more succinctly,
whatsoever he had been informed of as having passed in Germany, Italy,
Hungary, Poland: in short, in the different european states. Some
events, particularly the war of the Saracens against the king of Cyprus,
are treated at greater length than could have been expected in a general
history.

‘Although it appears that the principal object of Monstrelet in writing
this history was to preserve the memory of those wars which in his time,
desolated France and the adjoining countries, to bring into public
notice such personages as distinguished themselves by actions of valour
in battles, assaults, skirmishes, duels and tournaments,—and to show to
posterity that his age had produced as many heroes as any of the
preceding ones. He does not fail to give an account of such great
political or ecclesiastical events as took place during the period of
which he seemed only inclined to write the military history. He relates
many important details respecting the councils of Pisa, Constance, and
of Basil, of which the authors who have written the history of these
councils ought to have availed themselves, to compare them with the
other materials of which they made use.

‘There is no historian who does not seek to gain the confidence of his
readers, by first explaining in a preface all that he has done to
acquire the fullest information respecting the events he is about to
relate. All protest that they have not omitted any possible means to
ascertain the truth of facts, and that they have spared neither time nor
trouble to collect the minutest details concerning them. Without doubt,
great deductions must be made from such protestations: those of
Monstrelet, however, are accompanied with circumstances which convince
us that a dependance may be placed on them. Would he have dared to tell
his contemporaries, who could instantly have detected a falsehood had he
imposed on them, that he had been careful to consult on military affairs
those who, from their employments, must have been eye-witnesses of the
actions that he describes? that on other matters he had consulted such
as, from their situations, must have been among the principal actors,
and the great lords of both parties, whom he had often to address, to
engage in conversation on these events, at divers times, to confront
them, as it were, with themselves? On objects of less importance, such
as feasts, justs, tournaments, he had made his inquiries from heralds,
poursuivants, and kings at arms, who, from their office, must have been
appointed judges of the lists, or assistants, at such entertainments and
pastimes. For greater security, it was always more than a year after any
event had happened, before he began to arrange his materials and insert
them in his chronicle. He waited until time should have destroyed what
may have been exaggerated in the accounts of such events, or should have
confirmed their truth.

‘An infinite number of traits throughout his work proves the fidelity of
his narration. He marks the difference between facts of which he is
perfectly sure and those of which he is doubtful: if he cannot produce
his proof, he says so, and does not advance more. When he thinks that he
has omitted some details which he ought to have known, he frankly owns
that he has forgotten them. For instance, when speaking of the
conversation between the duke of Burgundy and the Pucelle d’Orléans, at
which he was present, he recollects that some circumstances have escaped
his memory, and avows that he does not remember them.

‘When after having related any event, he gains further knowledge
concerning it, he immediately informs his readers of it, and either adds
to or retrenches from his former narration, conformably to the last
information he had received. Froissart acted in a similar manner; and
Montaigne praises him for it. ‘The good Froissart,’ says he, ‘proceeds
in his undertaking with such frank simplicity that having committed a
mistake he is no way afraid of owning it, and of correcting it at the
moment he is sensible of it.’[5] We ought certainly to feel ourselves
obliged to these two writers for their attention in returning back to
correct any mistakes; but we should have been more thankful to them if
they had been pleased to add their corrections to the articles which had
been mistated, instead of scattering their amendments at hazard, as it
were, and leaving the readers to connect and compare them with the
original article as well as they can.

‘This is not the only defect common to both these historians. The
greater part of the chronological mistakes, which have been so ably
corrected by M. de Sainte Palaye in Froissart, are to be found in
Monstrelet; and what deserves particularly to be noticed, to avoid
falling into errors, is, that each of them, when passing from the
history of one country to another, introduces events of an earlier date,
without ever mentioning it, and intermix them in the same chapter, as if
they had taken place in the same period,—but Monstrelet has the
advantage of Froissart in the correctness of counting the years, which
he invariably begins on Easter-day and closes them on Easter-eve.

‘To chronological mistakes must be added the frequent disfiguring of
proper names,—more especially foreign ones, which are often so mangled
that it is impossible to decipher them. M. du Cange has corrected from
one thousand to eleven hundred on the margin of his copy of the edition
of 1572, which is now in the imperial library at Paris, and would be of
great assistance, should another edition of Monstrelet be called for.[6]
Names of places are not more clearly written, excepting those in
Flanders and Picardy, with which, of course, he was well acquainted. We
know not whether it be through affectation or ignorance that he calls
many towns by their latin names, frenchifying the termination: for
instance, Aix-la-Chapelle, Aquisgranie; Oxford, Oxonie,—and several
others in the like manner.

‘These defects are far from being repaid, as they are in Froissart, by
the agreeableness of the narration: that of Monstrelet is heavy,
monotonous, weak and diffuse. Sometimes a whole page is barely
sufficient for him to relate what would have been better told in six
lines; and it is commonly on the least important facts that he labours
the most.

‘The second chapter of the first volume, consisting of thirteen pages,
contains only a challenge from a spanish esquire, accepted by an esquire
of England, which, after four years of letters and messages, ends in
nothing. The ridiculousness of so pompous a narration had struck
Rabelais, who says, at page 158 of his third volume,—‘In reading this
tedious detail, (which he calls a little before _le tant long, curieux
et fâcheux conte_) we should imagine that it was the beginning, or
occasion, of some severe war, or of a great revolution of kingdoms; but
at the end of the tale we laugh at the stupid champion, the Englishman,
and Enguerrand their scribe, _plus baveux qu’un pot à moutarde_.’[7]

‘Monstrelet employs many pages to report the challenges sent by the duke
of Orleans, brother to king Charles VI., to Henry IV. king of
England,—challenges which are equally ridiculous with the former, and
which had a similar termination. When he meets with any event that
particularly regards Flanders or Picardy, he does not omit the smallest
circumstance: the most minute and most useless seem to him worth
preserving,—and this same man, so prolix when it were to be wished he
was concise, omits, for the sake of brevity, as he says, the most
interesting details. This excuse he repeats more than once, for
neglecting to enlarge on facts far more interesting than the quarrels of
the Flemings and Picards. When speaking of those towns in Champagne and
Brie which surrendered to Charles VII. immediately after his coronation,
he says, ‘As for these surrenders, I omit the particular detail of each
for the sake of brevity.’ In another place, he says, ‘Of these
reparations, for brevity sake, I shall not make mention.’ These
reparations were the articles of the treaty of peace concluded in 1437,
between the duke of Burgundy and the townsmen of Bruges.

‘I have observed an omission of another sort, but which must be
attributed solely to the copyists,—for I suspect them of having lost a
considerable part of a chapter in the second volume. The head of this
chapter is, ‘The duke of Orleans returns to the duke of Burgundy,’—and
the beginning of it describes the meeting of the two princes in the town
of Hêdin in 1441 (1442). They there determine to meet again almost
immediately in the town of Nevers, ‘with many others of the great
princes and lords of the kingdom of France,’ and at the end of eight
days they separate; the one taking the road through Paris for Blois, and
the other going into Burgundy.

‘This recital consists of about twenty lines, and then we read, ‘Here
follows a copy of the declaration sent to king Charles of France by the
lords assembled at Nevers, with the answers returned thereto by the
members of the great council, and certain requests made by them.’ This
title is followed by the declaration he has mentioned, and the answer
the king made to the ambassadors who had presented it to him.—Now, can
it be conceived that Monstrelet would have been silent as to the object
of the assembly of nobles? or not have named some of those who had been
present? and that, after having mentioned Nevers as the place of
meeting, he should have passed over every circumstance respecting it, to
the declarations and resolutions that had there been determined upon?
There are two reasons for concluding that part of this chapter must be
wanting: first, when Monstrelet returns to his narration, after having
related the king’s answer to the assembled lords, he speaks as having
before mentioned them, ‘the aforesaid lords,’ and I have just noticed
that he names none of them; secondly, when in the next chapter he
relates the expedition to Tartas, which was to decide on the fate of
Guienne, as having before mentioned it, ‘of which notice has been taken
in another place,’ it must have been in the preceding chapter,—but it is
not there spoken of, nor in any other place.

‘If the numerous imperfections of Monstrelet are not made amends for, as
I have said, by the beauty of his style, we must allow that they are
compensated by advantages of another kind. His narration is diffuse, but
clear,—and his style heavy, but always equal. He rarely offers any
reflections,—and they are always short and judicious. The temper of his
mind is particularly manifested by the circumstance that we do not find
in his work any ridiculous stories of sorcery, magic, astrology, or any
of those absurd prodigies which disgrace the greater part of the
historians of his time. The goodness of his heart also displays itself
in the traits of sensibility which he discovers in his recitals of
battles, sieges, and of towns won by storm: he seems then to rise
superior to himself,—and his style acquires strength and warmth. When he
relates the preparations for, and the commencement of, a war, his first
sentiment is to deplore the evils by which he foresees that the poorer
ranks will soon be overwhelmed. Whilst he paints the despair of the
wretched inhabitants of the country, pillaged and massacred by both
sides, we perceive that he is really affected by his subject, and writes
from his feelings. The writer of the cordelier register and the abbot of
St Aubert, have not, therefore, said too much, when they called him, ‘a
very honest and peaceable man.’ It appears, in fact, that benevolence
was the marked feature of his character, to which I am not afraid to add
the love of truth.

‘I know that in respect to this last virtue, his reputation is not
spotless, and that he has been commonly charged with partiality for the
house of Burgundy, and for that faction. Lancelot Voesin de la
Popeliniere is, I believe, the first who brought this accusation against
him. ‘Monstrelet,’ says he, ‘has scarcely shown himself a better
narrator than Froissart,—but a little more attached to truth, and less
of a party man.’ Denis Godefroy denies this small advantage over
Froissart which had been conceded to him by La Popeliniere. ‘Both of
them,’ he says, ‘incline toward the Burgundians.’

‘Le Gendre in his critical examination of the french historians, repeats
the same thing, but in more words. ‘Monstrelet,’ he writes, ‘too plainly
discovers his intentions of favouring, when he can, the dukes of
Burgundy and their friends.’ Many authors have adopted some of these
opinions, more or less disadvantageous to Monstrelet; hence has been
formed an almost universal prejudice, that he has, in his work, often
disfigured the truth in favour of the dukes of Burgundy.

‘I am persuaded that these different opinions, advanced without proof,
are void of foundation; and I have noticed facts, which having happened
during the years of which Monstrelet writes the history, may, from the
manner in which he narrates them, enable us to judge whether he was
capable of sacrificing truth to his attachment to the house of Burgundy.

‘In 1407, doctor John Petit, having undertaken to justify the
assassination of the duke of Orleans by orders from the duke of
Burgundy, sought to diminish the horror of such a deed, by tarnishing
the memory of the murdered prince with the blackest imputations.
Monstrelet, however, does not hesitate to say, that many persons thought
these imputations false and indecent. He reports, in the same chapter,
the divers opinions to which this unfortunate event gave rise, and does
not omit to say, that ‘many great lords, and other wise men, were much
astonished that the king should pardon the burgundian prince,
considering that the crime was committed on the person of the duke of
Orleans.’ We perceive, in reading this passage, that Monstrelet was of
the same opinion with the ‘other wise men.’

‘In 1408, Charles VI. having insisted that the children of the late duke
of Orleans should be reconciled to the duke of Burgundy, they were
forced to consent.—‘Sire, since you are pleased to command us, we grant
his request;’ and Monstrelet lets it appear that he considers their
compliance as a weakness, which he excuses on account of their youth,
and the state of neglect they were in after the death of their mother
the duchess of Orleans, who had sunk under her grief on not being able
to avenge the murder of her husband. ‘To say the truth, in consequence
of the death of their father, and also from the loss of their mother,
they were greatly wanting in advice and support.’ He likewise relates,
at the same time, the conversations held by different great lords on
this occasion, in whom sentiments of humanity and respect for the
blood-royal were not totally extinguished. ‘That henceforward it would
be no great offence to murder a prince of the blood, since those who had
done so were so easily acquitted, without making any reparation, or even
begging pardon.’ A determined partisan of the house of Burgundy would
have abstained from transmitting such a reflection to posterity.

‘I shall mention another fact, which will be fully sufficient for the
justification of the historian. None of the writers of his time have
spoken with such minuteness of the most abominable of the actions of the
duke of Burgundy: I mean that horrid conspiracy which he had planned in
1415, by sending his emissaries to Paris to intrigue and bring it to
maturity, and the object of which was nothing less than to seize and
confine the king, and to put him to death, with the queen, the
chancellor of France, the queen of Sicily, and numberless others.
Monstrelet lays open, without reserve, all the circumstances of the
conspiracy: he tells us by whom it was discovered: he names the
principal conspirators, some of whom were beheaded, others drowned.—He
adds, ‘However, those nobles whom the duke of Burgundy had sent to Paris
returned as secretly and as quietly as they could without being arrested
or stopped.’

‘An historian devoted to the duke of Burgundy would have treated this
affair more tenderly, and would not have failed to throw the whole blame
of the plot on the wicked partisans of the duke, without saying
expressly that they had acted under his directions and by his orders
contained ‘in credential letters signed with his hand.’ It is rather
singular, that Juvénal des Ursins, who cannot be suspected of being a
Burgundian, should, in his history of Charles VI. have merely related
this event, and that very summarily, without attributing any part of it
to the duke of Burgundy, whom he does not even name.

‘The impartiality of Monstrelet is not less clear in the manner in which
he speaks of the leaders of the two factions, Burgundians or Armagnacs,
who are praised or blamed without exception of persons, according to the
merit of their actions. The excesses which both parties indulged in are
described with the same strength of style, and in the same tone of
indignation. In 1411, when Charles VI. in league with the duke of
Burgundy, ordered, by an express edict, that all of the Orleans party
should be attacked as enemies throughout the kingdom, ‘it was a pitiful
thing,’ says the historian, ‘to hear daily miserable complaints of the
persecutions and sufferings of individuals.’ He is no way sparing of his
expressions in this instance, and they are still stronger in the recital
which immediately follows: ‘Three thousand combatants marched to
Bicêtre, a very handsome house belonging to the duke of Berry (who was
of the Orleans party),—and from hatred to the said duke, they destroyed
and villainously demolished the whole, excepting the walls.’

‘The interest which Monstrelet here displays for the duke of Berry,
agrees perfectly with that which he elsewhere shows for Charles VI. He
must have had a heart truly French to have painted in the manner he has
done the state of debasement and neglect to which the court of France
was reduced in 1420, compared with the pompous state of the king of
England: he is affected with the humiliation of the one, and hurt at the
magnificence of the other, which formed so great a contrast. ‘The king
of France was meanly and poorly served, and was scarcely visited on this
day by any but some old courtiers and persons of low degree, which must
have wounded all true french hearts.’ And a few lines farther, he says,
‘With regard to the state of the king of England, it is impossible to
recount its great magnificence and pomp, or to describe the grand
entertainments and attendance in his palace.’

‘This idea had made such an impression on him that he returns again to
it on occasion of the solemn feast of Whitsuntide, which the king and
queen of England came to celebrate in Paris, in 1422. ‘On this day, the
king and queen of England held a numerous and magnificent court,—but
king Charles remained with his queen at the palace of St Pol, neglected
by all, which caused great grief to numbers of loyal Frenchmen, and not
without cause.’

‘These different traits, thus united, form a strong conclusion, or I am
deceived, that Monstrelet has been too lightly charged with partiality
for the house of Burgundy, and with disaffection to the crown of France.

‘I have hitherto only spoken of the two first volumes of the chronicles
of Monstrelet; the third, which commences in April 1444, I think should
be treated of separately, because I scarcely see any thing in it that
may be attributed to him. In the first place, the thirteen last years,
from his death in 1453 to that of the duke of Burgundy in 1467, which
form the contents of the greater part of this volume, cannot have been
written by him. Secondly, the nine preceding years, of which Monstrelet,
who was then living, may have been the author, seem to me to be written
by another hand. We do not find in this part either his style or manner
of writing: instead of that prolixity which has been so justly found
fault with, the whole is treated with the dryness of the poorest
chronicle: it is an abridged journal of what passed worthy of
remembrance in Europe, but more particularly in France, from 1444 to
1453,—in which the events are arranged methodically, according to the
days on which they happened, without other connexion than that of the
dates.

‘Each of the two first volumes is preceded by a prologue, which serves
as an introduction to the history of the events that follow: the third
has neither prologue nor preface. In short, with the exception of the
sentence passed on the duke of Alençon, there are not, in this volume,
any justificatory pieces, negotiations, letters, treaties, ordinances,
which constitute the principal merit of the two preceding ones. It
would, however, have been very easy for the compiler to have imitated
Monstrelet in this point, for the greater part of these pieces are
reported by the chronicler of St Denis, whom he often quotes in his
first fifty pages. I am confirmed in this idea by having examined into
the truth of different events, when I found that the compiler had
scarcely done more than copy, word for word,—sometimes from the Grandes
Chroniques of France,—at others, though rarely, from the history of
Charles VII. by Jean Chartier, and, still more rarely, from the
chronicler of Arras, of whom he borrows some facts relative to the
history of Flanders.[8]

‘To explain this resemblance, it cannot be said that the editors of the
Grandes Chroniques have copied Monstrelet, for the Grandes Chroniques
are often quoted in this third volume, which consequently must have been
written posterior to them. There would be as little foundation to
suppose that Monstrelet had copied them himself, and inserted only such
facts as more particularly belonged to the history of the dukes of
Burgundy. The difference of the plan and execution of the two first
volumes and of this evidently points out another author. But should any
doubt remain, it will soon be removed by the evidence of a contemporary
writer, who precisely fixes on the year 1444 as the conclusion of the
labours of Monstrelet.

‘Matthieu d’Escouchy, or de Couci, author of a history published by
Denis Godefroy, at the end of that of Charles VII. by Chartier, thus
expresses himself in the prologue at the beginning of his work: ‘I shall
commence my said history from the 20th day of May, in the year 1444,
when the last book, which that noble and valiant man Enguerrand de
Monstrelet chronicled in his time, concludes. He was a native of the
county of the Boulonnois, and at the time of his death was governor and
citizen of Cambray, whose works will be in renown long after his
decease. It is my intention to take up the history where the late
Enguerrand left it,—namely, at the truces which were made and concluded
at Tours, in Touraine, in the month of May, on the day and year before
mentioned, between the most excellent, most powerful, Charles, the
well-served king of France, of most noble memory, seventh of the name,
and Henry king of England his nephew.’

‘These truces conclude the last chapter of the second volume of
Monstrelet: it is there where the real chronicles end; and he has
improperly been hitherto considered as the author of the history of the
nine years that preceded his death, for I cannot suppose that the
evidence of Matthieu de Coucy will be disputed. He was born at Quesnoy,
in Hainault, and living at Peronne while Monstrelet resided at Cambray.
The proximity of the places must have enabled him to be fully informed
of every thing that concerned the historian and his work.

‘If we take from Monstrelet what has been improperly attributed to him,
it is but just to restore that which legally belongs to him. According
to the register of the Cordeliers of Cambray, and the Memoriaux of Jean
le Robert, he had written the history of the war of the Ghent-men
against the duke of Burgundy. Now the events of this war, which began in
the month of April 1452, and was not terminated before the end of July
in the following year, are related with much minuteness in the third
volume.[9] After the authorities above quoted, we cannot doubt that
Monstrelet was the author, if not of the whole account, at least of the
greater part of it: I say ‘part of it,’ for he could not have narrated
the end of this war, since peace between the Ghent-men and their prince
was not concluded until the 31st July, and Monstrelet was buried on the
20th. It is not even probable that he would have had time to collect the
events that happened at the beginning of the month, unless we suppose
that he died suddenly; whence I think it may be conjectured, that
Monstrelet ceased to write towards the end of June, when the castle of
Helsebecque was taken by the duke of Burgundy, and that the history of
the war was written by another hand, who may have arranged the materials
which Monstrelet had collected, but had not reduced to order.

‘There seems here to arise a sort of contradiction between Matthieu de
Coucy, who fixes, as I have said, the conclusion of Monstrelet’s writing
at the year 1444, and the register of the Cordeliers, which agrees with
the Memoriaux of Jean le Robert; but this contradiction will vanish, if
we reflect that the history of the revolt of Ghent, in 1453, is an
insulated matter, having no connexion with the history of the reign of
Charles VII. and that it cannot be considered as forming part of the two
first volumes, from which it is detached by a space of eight years.
Matthieu de Coucy, therefore, who may not, perhaps, have known of this
historical fragment, was entitled to say, that the chronicles written by
Monstrelet ended at the year 1444.

‘The continuator of these chronicles having reported the conclusion of
the war between the Ghent-men and their prince, then copies
indiscriminately from the Grandes Chroniques, or from Jean Chartier,
with more or less exactness, as may readily be discovered on collating
them, as I have done. He only adds some facts relative to the history of
Burgundy, and carries the history to the death of Charles VII. This
part, which is more interesting than the former, because the writer has
added to the chronicles facts in which they were deficient, is more
defective in the arrangement. Several events that relate to the general
history of the realm are told twice over, and in succession,—first in an
abridged state, and then more minutely,—and sometimes with differences
so great that it seems impossible that both should have been written by
the same person.[10]

‘This defect, however, we cannot without injustice attribute to the
continuator of Monstrelet,—for it is clearly perceptible that he only
treats of the general history of France in as far as it is connected
with that of Burgundy, and we cannot suppose that he would repeat twice
events foreign to the principal object of his work. It is much more
natural to believe that the abridged accounts are his, and that the
first copiers, thinking they were too short, have added the whole detail
of these articles from the Grandes Chroniques or from Jean Chartier,
whence he had been satisfied with merely making extracts.

‘From the death of Charles VII. in 1461, to that of Philip duke of
Burgundy, we meet with no more of these repetitions. The historian (for
he then deserves the name) leaves off copying the Chronicles, and
advances without a guide: consequently, he is very frequently
bewildered. I shall not attempt to notice his faults, which are the same
with those of Monstrelet, and I could but repeat what I have said
before. There is, however, one which is peculiar to him, and which
pervades the whole work: it is an outrageous partiality for the house of
Burgundy.

‘We may excuse him for having written, under the title of a General
History of France, the particular history of Burgundy, and for having
only treated of that of France incidentally, in as far as it interested
the burgundian princes. We may, indeed, more readily pardon him for
having painted Charles VII. as a voluptuous monarch, and Louis XI.
sometimes as a tyrant, at others as a deep and ferocious politician,
holding in contempt the most sacred engagements. But the fidelity of
history required that he should not have been silent as to the vices of
the duke of Burgundy and his son, who plunged France into an abyss of
calamities, and that his predilection for these two princes should not
burst forth in every page.

‘The person who continued this first part of the chronicles of
Monstrelet has been hitherto unknown, but I believe a lucky accident has
enabled me to discover him. Dom Berthod, a learned benedictine monk of
the congregation of St Vanne, having employed himself for these many
years in searching the libraries and ancient rolls in Flanders for facts
relative to our history, has made a report with extracts from numerous
manuscripts, of which we had only vague ideas. He has had the goodness
to communicate some of them to me, and among others the chronicle of
Jacques du Clercq,[11] which begins at 1448, and ends, like the
continuator of Monstrelet, at the death of the duke of Burgundy in 1467.
In order to give a general idea of the contents of the work, D. Berthod
has copied, with the utmost exactness, the table of chapters composed by
Jacques du Clercq himself, as he tells us in his prologue. I have
compared this table and the extracts with the continuation of
Monstrelet, and have observed such a similarity, particularly from the
year 1453 to 1467, that I think it impossible for any two writers to be
so exactly the same unless one had copied after the other.

‘As we do not possess the whole of this chronicle, I can but offer this
as a very probable conjecture, which will be corroborated, when it is
considered that Jacques du Clercq and the continuator of Monstrelet
lived in the same country. The first resided in Arras; and by the minute
details the second enters into concerning Flanders, we may judge that he
was an inhabitant of that country. Some villages burnt, or events still
less interesting, and unknown beyond the places where they happened, are
introduced into his history. In like manner, we should discover without
difficulty (if it were otherwise unknown), that the editor of the
Grandes Chroniques was a monk of the abbey of St Denis, when he gravely
relates, as an important event, that on such a day the scullion of the
abbey was found dead in his bed,—and that a peasant of Clignancourt beat
his wife until she died.

‘To these divers relations between the two writers, we must add the
period when they wrote. We see by the preface of Jacques du Clercq, that
he composed his history shortly after the death of Philip duke of
Burgundy in 1467; and the continuator of Monstrelet, when speaking of
the arrest of the bastard de Rubempré in Holland, whither he had been
sent by Louis XI. says, that the bastard was a prisoner at the time he
was writing, ‘at the end of February 1468, before Easter;’ that is to
say, that he was at work on his history in the month of February 1469,
according to our mode of beginning the year.

‘Whether this continuation be an abridgment of the chronicle of Jacques
du Clercq or an original chronicle, it seems very clear that Monstrelet
has been tried by the merits of this third volume, and that his
reputation of being a party-writer has been grounded on the false
opinion that he was the author of it.

‘I cannot close this essay without expressing my surprise that no one,
before the publication of the article respecting Monstrelet in the
register of the Cordeliers, had suspected that part, at least, of this
third volume, which has been attributed to him, could not have come from
his hand. Any attentive reader must have been struck with the passage
where the continuator relates the death of Charles duke of Orleans,
when, after recapitulating in a few words the misfortunes which the
murder of his father had caused to France, he refers the reader for more
ample details to the history ‘of Monstrelet:’ as ‘may be seen,’ says he,
‘in the Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet.’

‘I shall not notice the other continuations, which carry the history to
the reign of Francis I.; for this article has been discussed by M. de
Foncemagne, in an essay read before the Academy in 1742;[12] nor the
different editions of Monstrelet. M. le Duchat, in his ‘Remarques sur
divers Sujets de Littérature,’ and the editor of ‘La nouvelle
Bibliothéque des Historiens de France,’ have left nothing more to be
said on the subject.’

------------------------------------------------------------------------



                              OBSERVATIONS

    ON THE CHRONICLE OF ENGUERRAND DE MONSTRELET, BY M. DE
        FONCEMAGNE, MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PAGE, TRANSLATED
        FROM THE XVITH VOLUME OF THE ‘MEMOIRES DE L’ACADÉMIE DE
        BELLES LETTRES,’ &c.


The Chronicle of Enguerrand de Monstrelet, governor of Cambray,
commences at the year 1400, where that of Froissart ends, and terminates
at 1467; but different editors have successively added several
continuations, which bring it down to the year 1516.

The critics have before remarked, that the first of these additions was
nothing more than a chronicle of Louis XI. known under the name of the
‘Chronique Scandaleuse,’ and attributed to John de Troyes, registrar of
the hôtel de ville of Paris. Those who have made this remark should have
added, that the beginning of the two works is different, and that they
only become uniform at the description of the great floods of the Seine
and Marne, which happened in 1460, for the author takes up the history
at that year. This event will be found at the ninth page of the
Chronique Scandaleuse (in the second volume of the Brussels-edition of
Comines), and at the third leaf of the last volume of Monstrelet (second
order of ciphers) edition of 1603.

The second continuation includes the whole of the reign of Charles VIII.
It is written by Pierre Desrey, who styles himself in the title, ‘simple
orateur de Troyes en Champagne.’ The greater part of this addition, more
especially what respects the invasion of Italy, is again to be met with
at the end of the translation of Gaguin’s chronicle made by this same
Desrey,—at the conclusion of ‘La Chronique de Bretagne,’ by Alain
Bouchard,—and in the history of Charles VIII. by M. Godefroi, page 190,
where it is called ‘a relation of the expedition of Charles VIII.’

M. de Foncemagne says nothing more of the other continuations, which he
had not occasion to examine with the same care; but he thinks they may
have been taken from those which Desrey has added to his translation of
Gaguin, as far as the year 1538. This notice may be useful to those who
shall study the history of Louis XI. and of Charles VIII. inasmuch as it
will spare them the trouble and disgust of reading several times the
same things, which they could have no reason to suspect had been copied
from each other.

We should be under great obligations to the authors of rules for
reading, if in pointing out what on each subject ought to be read, they
would, at the same time, inform us what ought not to be read. This
information is particularly necessary in regard to old chronicles, or
what are called in France _Recueils de Pieces_. The greater part of the
chroniclers have copied each other, at least for the years that have
preceded their own writings: in like manner, an infinite number of
detached pieces have been published by different editors. Thus books
multiply, volumes thicken, and the only result to men of letters is an
increase of obstacles in their progress.

The learned Benedictine, who is labouring at the collection of french
historians, has wisely avoided this inconvenience in regard to the
chronicles.[13] A society of learned men announced in 1734 an
alphabetical library, or a general index of ancient pieces scattered in
those compilations known under the names of Spicilegia, Analecta,
Anecdota, by which would be seen at a glance in how many places the same
piece could be found. This project, on its appearance, gave rise to a
literary warfare, the only fruit of which was to cool the zeal of the
illustrious authors who had conceived it, and to prevent the execution
of a work which would have been of infinite utility to the republic of
letters.[14]

------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                  THE

                               PROLOGUE.


As Sallust says, at the commencement of his Bellum Catalinarium, wherein
he relates many extraordinary deeds of arms done by the Romans and their
adversaries, that every man ought to avoid idleness, and exercise
himself in good works, to the end that he may not resemble beasts, who
are only useful to themselves unless otherwise instructed,—and as there
cannot be any more suitable or worthy occupation than handing down to
posterity the grand and magnanimous feats of arms, and the inestimable
subtleties of war which by valiant men have been performed, as well
those descended from noble families as others of low degree, in the most
Christian kingdom of France, and in many other countries of Christendom
under different laws, for the instruction and information of those who
in a just cause may be desirous of honourably exercising their prowess
in arms; and also to celebrate the glory and renown of those who by
strength of courage and bodily vigour have gallantly distinguished
themselves, as well in sudden rencounters as in pitched battles, armies
against armies, or in single combats, like as valiant men ought to do,
who, reading or hearing these accounts, should attentively consider
them, in order to bring to remembrance the above deeds of arms and other
matters worthy of record, and especially particular acts of prowess that
have happened within the period of this history, as well as the
discords, wars and quarrels that have arisen between princes and great
lords of the kingdom of France, also between those of the adjoining
countries, that have been continued for a long time, specifying the
causes whence these wars have had their origin.

I Enguerrand de Monstrelet, descended from a noble family, and residing,
at the time of composing this present book, in the noble city of
Cambray, a town belonging to the empire of Germany, employed myself in
writing a history in prose, although the matter required a genius
superior to mine, from the great weight of many of the events relative
to the royal majesty of princes, and grand deeds of arms that will enter
into its composition. It requires also great subtlety of knowledge to
describe the causes of many of the events, seeing that several of them
have been very diversely related. I have frequently marvelled within
myself how this could have happened, and whether the diversity of these
accounts of the same event could have any other foundation than in
party-prejudice; and perhaps it may have been the case, that those who
have been engaged in battles or skirmishes have paid so much attention
to conduct themselves with honour that they have been unable to notice
particularly what was passing in other parts of the field of battle.

Nevertheless, as I was from my youth fond of hearing such histories, I
took pains, according to the extent of my understanding until of mature
age, to make every diligent inquiry as to the truth of different events,
and questioned such persons as from their rank and birth would disdain
to relate a falsehood, and others known for their love of truth in the
different and opposing parties, on every point in these chronicles from
the first book to the last; and particularly, I made inquiries from
kings at arms, heralds, poursuivants, and lords resident on their
estates, respecting the wars of France, who, from their offices or
situations, ought to be well informed of facts, and relaters of the
truth concerning them.

On their informations often repeated, and throwing aside every thing I
thought doubtful or false, or not proved by the continuation of their
accounts, and having maturely considered their relations, at the end of
a year I had them fairly written down, and not sooner. I then determined
to pursue my work to a conclusion, without leaning or showing favour to
any party, but simply to give to every one his due share of honour,
according to the best of my abilities; for to do otherwise would be to
detract from the honour and prowess which valiant and prudent men have
acquired at the risk of their lives, whose glory and renown should be
exalted in recompense for their noble deeds.

And inasmuch as this is a difficult undertaking, and cannot be pleasing
to all parties,—some of whom may maintain, that what I have related of
particular events is not the truth,—I therefore entreat and request all
noble persons who may read this book to excuse me, if they find in it
some things that may not be perfectly agreeable to them; for I declare I
have written nothing but what has been asserted to me as fact, and told
to me as such, and, should it not prove so, on those who have been my
informants must the blame be laid. If, on the contrary, they find any
virtuous actions worthy of preservation, and that may with delight be
proposed as proper examples to be followed, let the honour and praise be
bestowed on those who performed them, and not on me, who am simply the
narrator.

This present Chronicle will commence on Easter-day, in the year of Grace
1400, at which time was concluded the last volume of the Chronicles of
sir John Froissart, native of Valenciennes in Hainault, whose renown on
account of his excellent work will be of long duration. The first book
of this work concludes with the death of Charles VI. the most Christian
and most worthy king of France, surnamed ‘the well beloved,’ who
deceased at his hôtel of St Pol at Paris, near the Celestins, the 22d
day of October 1422. But that the causes of these divisions and discords
which arose in that most renowned and excellent kingdom of France may be
known, discords which caused such desolation and misery to that realm as
is pitiful to relate, I shall touch a little at the commencement of my
history on the state, government, manners and conduct of the aforesaid
king Charles during his youth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                  THE

                              FIRST VOLUME

                                 OF THE

                               CHRONICLES

                                   OF

                      _ENGUERRAND DE MONSTRELET_.


                                CHAP. I.

    HOW CHARLES THE WELL-BELOVED REIGNED IN FRANCE, AFTER HE HAD
        BEEN CROWNED AT RHEIMS, IN THE YEAR THIRTEEN HUNDRED AND
        EIGHTY.


In conformity to what I said in my prologue, that I would speak of the
state and government of king Charles VI. of France, surnamed the
well-beloved, in order to explain the causes of the divisions and
quarrels of the princes of the blood royal during his reign and
afterward, I shall devote this first chapter to that purpose.

True it is, that the above-mentioned king Charles the well-beloved, son
to king Charles V. began to reign and was crowned at Rheims the Sunday
before All-saints-day, in the year of Grace one thousand three hundred
and eighty, as is fully described in the Chronicles of sir John
Froissart. He was then but fourteen years old, and thenceforward for
some time governed his kingdom right well. By following prudent advice
at the commencement of his reign, he undertook several expeditions, in
which, considering his youth, he conducted himself soberly and
valiantly, as well in Flanders, where he gained the battle of Rosebeque
and reduced the Flemings to his obedience, as afterward in the valley of
Cassel and on that frontier against the duke of Gueldres. He then made
preparations at Sluys for an invasion of England. All which enterprises
made him redoubted in every part of the world that heard of him.

But Fortune, who frequently turns her wheel against those of high rank
as well as against those of low degree, began to play him her
tricks[15]; for, in the year one thousand three hundred and ninety-two,
the king had resolved in his council to march a powerful army to the
town of Mans, and thence invade Brittany, to subjugate and bring under
his obedience the duke of Brittany, for having received and supported
the lord Peter de Craon, who had beaten and insulted in Paris, to his
great displeasure, sir Oliver de Clisson, his constable.

On this march, a most melancholy adventure befel him, which brought on
his kingdom the utmost distress, and which I shall relate, although it
took place prior to the date of this history.

During the time the king was on his march from Mans toward Brittany,
attended by his princes and chivalry, he was suddenly seized with a
disorder which deprived him of his reason. He wrested a spear from the
hands of one of his attendants, and struck with it the varlet of the
bastard of Langres, and slew him: he then killed the bastard of Langres,
and struck the duke of Orleans, his brother, who, although well armed,
was wounded in the shoulder. He next wounded the lord de Saint Py, and
would have put him to death had not God prevented it; for in making his
thrust, he fell to the ground,—when, by the diligence of the lord de
Coucy and others his faithful servants, the spear was with difficulty
taken from him. Thence he was conducted to the said town of Mans, and
visited by his physicians, who thought his case hopeless: nevertheless,
by the grace of God, he recovered better health, and his senses, but not
so soundly as he possessed them before this accident. From that time he
had frequent relapses,—and it was necessary, during his life,
perpetually to look after him and keep him under strict observance.

From this unfortunate disorder may be dated all the miseries and
desolations that befel his realm; for then begun all those jealousies
between the princes of his blood, each contending for the government of
the kingdom, seeing clearly that he was willing to act in any manner
that those near his person desired, and in the absence of their rivals
craftily advising him to their own private advantage, without attending
to act in concert for the general good of the state. Some, however,
acquitted themselves loyally, for which after their deaths, they were
greatly praised.

This king had several sons and daughters, whose names now follow, that
lived to man’s estate; first, Louis, duke of Acquitaine, who espoused
the eldest daughter of the duke of Burgundy, but died without issue
before the king his father,—John, duke of Touraine, who married the only
daughter of duke William of Bavaria, count of Hainault, who also died
before his father, and without issue,—Charles, married to the daughter
of king Louis II. of Naples, who had issue that will be noticed
hereafter: he succeeded to the crown of France on the death of his
father.

He had five daughters: Isabella, the eldest, was first married to king
Richard II. of England, and afterward to Charles duke of Orleans, by
whom she had a daughter: Jane, married to John duke of Brittany, had
many children: Michelle espoused Philip duke of Burgundy, but had no
issue: Mary was a nun at Poissy: Catherine, married to Henry V. of
England, had a son, Henry, who succeeded, on the death of his father, to
the throne of England. King Charles had all these children by his queen,
Isabella[16], daughter to Stephen duke of Bavaria.



                               CHAP. II.

    AN ESQUIRE OF ARRAGON, NAMED MICHEL D’ORRIS, SENDS
        CHALLENGES TO ENGLAND.—THE ANSWER HE RECEIVES FROM A
        KNIGHT OF THAT COUNTRY.


At the beginning of this year one thousand four hundred, an esquire of
Arragon, named Michel d’Orris, sent challenges to England of the
following tenor:

‘In the name of God and of the blessed virgin Mary, I Michel d’Orris, to
exalt my name, knowing full well the renown of the prowess of the
english chivalry, have, from the date of this present letter, attached
to my leg a piece of the greve, to be worn by me until I be delivered
from it by an english knight performing the following deeds of arms.

‘First, to enter the lists on foot, each armed in the manner he shall
please, having a dagger and sword attached to any part of his body, and
a battle-axe, with the handle of such length as I shall fix on. The
combat to be as follows: ten strokes with the battle axe, without
intermission; and when these strokes shall have been given, and the
judge shall cry out, ‘Ho!’ ten cuts with the sword, to be given without
intermission or change of armour. When the judge shall cry out, ‘Ho!’ we
will resort to our daggers, and give ten stabs with them. Should either
party lose or drop his weapon, the other may continue the use of the one
in his hand until the judge shall cry out, ‘Ho!’

‘When the combat on foot shall be finished, we will mount our horses,
each armed as he shall please, but with two similar helmets of iron,
which I will provide, and my adversary shall have the choice: each shall
have what sort of gorget he pleases: I will also provide two saddles,
for the choice of my opponent. There shall also be two lances of equal
lengths, with which twenty courses shall be run, with liberty to strike
on the fore or hinder parts of the body, from the fork of the body
upward.

‘These courses being finished, the following combats to take place: that
is to say, should it happen that neither of us be wounded, we shall be
bound to perform, on that or on the following day, so many courses on
horseback until one fall to the ground, or be wounded so that he can
hold out no longer, each person being armed as to his body and head
according to his pleasure. The targets to be made of horn or sinews,
without any part being of iron or steel, and no deceit in them. The
courses to be performed with the before-mentioned lances and saddles, on
horseback; but each may settle his stirrups as he pleases, but without
any trick.

‘To add greater authenticity to this letter, I Michel d’Orris have
sealed it with the seal of my arms, written and dated from Paris, Friday
the 27th day of May, in the year 1400.’

The poursuivant Aly went with this letter to Calais, where it was seen
by an english knight, called sir John Prendergast, who accepted the
challenge, provided it were agreeable to his sovereign lord the king of
England, and in consequence wrote the following answer to the arragonian
esquire:

‘To the noble and honourable personage Michel d’Orris,—John Prendergast,
knight, and familiar to the most high and puissant lord the earl of
Somerset, sends greeting, honour and pleasure.

‘May it please you to know, that I have just seen your letter, sent
hither by the poursuivant Aly, from which I learn the valiant desire you
have for deeds of arms, which has induced you to wear on your leg a
certain thing that is of pain to you, but which you will not take off
until delivered by an english knight performing with you such deeds of
arms as are mentioned in your aforesaid letter. I, being equally
desirous of gaining honour and amusement like a gentleman to the utmost
of my power, in the name of God, of the blessed virgin Mary, of my lords
St George and St Anthony, have accepted and do accept your challenge,
according to the best sense of the terms in your letter, as well to ease
you from the pain you are now suffering as from the desire I have long
had of making acquaintance with some of the french nobility, to learn
more knowledge from them in the honourable profession of arms. But my
acceptation of your challenge must be subject to the good pleasure of my
sovereign lord the king, that he may from his especial grace grant me
liberty to fulfil it, either before his royal presence in England, or
otherwise at Calais before my lord the earl of Somerset.

‘And since you mention in your letter, that you will provide helmets,
from which your adversary may chuse, and that each may wear such gorgets
as he shall please, I wish you to know, that to prevent any unnecessary
delay by any supposed subtlety of mine respecting armour or otherwise, I
will also bring with me two helmets and two gorgets for you, if you
shall think proper, to chuse from them; and I promise you, on my loyalty
and good faith, that I will exert all my own influence and that of my
friends, to obtain the aforesaid permission, of which I hope to God I
shall not be disappointed.

‘Should it be the good pleasure of the king to grant his consent, I will
write to the governor of Boulogne on Epiphany-day next ensuing, or
sooner if it be possible, to acquaint him of the time and place of
combat, that you may be instantly informed of the willingness of my
heart to comply with your request.

‘Noble, honourable and valiant lord, I pray the Author of all good to
grant you joy, honour and pleasure, with every kind thing you may wish
to the lady of your affections, to whom I entreat that these presents
may recommend me. Written at Calais, and sealed with my seal, this 11th
day of June, in the year aforesaid.’

This letter was sent to the arragonian esquire; but the english knight
not receiving an answer so soon as he expected, and the matter seeming
to be delayed, he again wrote as follows:

‘To the honourable Michel d’Orris, John Prendergast, knight, sends
greeting.

‘Since to ease you from the penance you have suffered, and still do
suffer, in wearing the stump of the greve on your leg, I have consented
to deliver you by a combat at arms described in your former letters,
sealed with the seal of your arms; and in consequence of the request
made by me and by my friends to my sovereign lord and king, who has
ordained the most excellent and puissant lord of Somerset, his brother,
governor of Calais, to be the judge of our combat, as I had written to
you by Aly the poursuivant, in my letter bearing date the 11th day of
last June, and which you ought to have received and seen in proper time.

‘This is apparent from letters of that noble and potent man the lord de
Gaucourt, chamberlain to the king of France, bearing date the 20th day
of January, declaring that he had forwarded my letter to you, to hasten
your journey hitherward. You will have learnt from it that the day
appointed for the fulfilment of our engagement is fixed for the first
Monday in the ensuing month of May; for so it has been ordained by the
king, our lord, in consequence of my solicitations. I must therefore
obey; and since it has pleased that monarch, for various other weighty
considerations touching his royal excellence, to order my lord, his
brother, into other parts on the appointed day, he has condescended, at
the humble requests of myself, my kindred and friends, to nominate for
our judge his cousin, my much honoured lord Hugh Lutrellier[17],
lieutenant to my aforesaid lord of Somerset, in the government of
Calais. I am therefore ready prepared to fulfil our engagement in arms,
under the good pleasure of God, St George and St Anthony, expecting that
you will not fail to meet me for the deliverance from your long penance;
and, to accomplish this, I send you a passport for forty persons and as
many horses.

‘I have nothing more now to add, for you know how much your honour is
concerned in this matter. I entreat therefore Cupid, the god of love, as
you may desire the affections of your lady, to urge you to hasten your
journey.—Written at Calais, and sealed with my arms, the 2d day of
January 1401.’


    THE THIRD LETTER WRITTEN AND SENT BY THE ENGLISH KNIGHT TO
        THE ESQUIRE OF ARRAGON.

‘To the honourable man Michel d’Orris, John Prendergast, knight, sends
greeting.

‘You will be pleased to remember, that you sent, by Aly the poursuivant,
a general challenge, addressed to all english knights, written at Paris
on Friday the 27th day of May 1400, sealed with the seal of your arms.
You must likewise recollect the answer I sent to your challenge, as an
english knight who had first seen your defiance; which answer, and all
that has since passed between us, I have renewed in substance, in my
letters sealed with my arms, and bearing date the last day but one of
April just passed. I likewise sent you a good and sufficient passport to
come hither, and perform the promises held out by your letter, addressed
to you in a manner similar to that of this present letter.

‘Know, therefore, that I am greatly astonished, considering the purport
of my letters, that I have not received any answer, and that you have
not kept your appointment, by meeting me on the day fixed on, nor sent
any sufficient excuse for this failure. I am ignorant if the god of
love, who inspired you with the courage to write your challenge, have
since been displeased, and changed his ancient pleasures, which formerly
consisted in urging on deeds of arms, and in the delights of chivalry.

‘He kept the nobles of his court under such good government[18] that, to
add to their honour, after having undertaken any deeds of arms, they
could not absent themselves from the country where such enterprise was
to be performed until it was perfectly accomplished, and this caused
their companions not to labour or exert themselves in vain. I would not,
therefore, he should find me so great a defaulter in this respect as to
banish me from his court, and, consequently, shall remain here until the
eighth day of this present month of May, ready, with the aid of God, of
St George and of St Anthony, to deliver you, so that your lady and mine
may know that, out of respect to them, I am willing to ease you of your
penance, which, according to the tenor of your letter, you have suffered
a long time, and have sufficient reason for wishing to be relieved from
it.

‘After the above-mentioned period, should you be unwilling to come, I
intend, under God’s pleasure, to return to England, to our ladies, where
I hope to God that knights and esquires will bear witness that I have
not misbehaved toward the god of love, to whom I recommend my lady and
yours, hoping he will not be displeased with them for any thing that may
have happened.—Written at Calais, and sealed with my arms, the 2d day of
May 1401.’


    THE ANSWERS THE ARRAGONIAN ESQUIRE SENT TO THE LETTERS OF
        THE ENGLISH KNIGHT.

‘To the most noble personage sir John Prendergast, knight,

‘I Michel d’Orris, esquire, native of the kingdom of Arragon, make
known, that from the ardent and courageous desire I have had, and always
shall have so long as it may please God to grant me life, to employ my
time in arms, so suitable to every gentleman; knowing that in the
kingdom of England there were very many knights of great prowess, who,
in my opinion, had been too long asleep, to awaken them from their
indolence, and to make acquaintance with some of them, I attached to my
leg a part of a greve, vowing to wear it until I should be delivered by
a knight of that country, and, in consequence, wrote my challenge at
Paris, the 27th day of May in the year 1400, and which was carried by
the poursuivant Aly, as your letters, dated the 11th of December, from
Calais, testify.

‘I thank you for what is contained at the commencement of your said
letter, since you seem willing to deliver me from the pain I am in, as
your gracious expressions testify; and you declare you have long been
desirous of making acquaintance with some valiant man of France. That
you may not be ignorant who I am, I inform you that I am a native of the
kingdom of Arragon, not that myself nor any greater person may claim a
superior rank from having been born in France; for although no one can
reproach the French with any disgraceful act, or with any thing
unbecoming a gentleman, or that truth would wish to hide, yet no honest
man should deny his country. I therefore assure you, that I have had,
and shall continue to have, the same desire for the fulfilment of my
engagement, according to the proposals contained in my letter, until it
be perfectly accomplished.

‘It is true that I formed this enterprise while living in Arragon; but
seeing I was too far distant from England for the speedy accomplishment
of it, I set out for Paris, where I staid a very considerable time after
I had sent off my challenge.

‘Business[19] respecting my sovereign lord the king of Arragon forced me
to leave France; and I returned very melancholy to my own country, and
surprised at the dilatoriness of so many noble knights in the amusement
I offered them, for I had not any answer during the space of two years
that I was detained in Arragon from the quarrels of my friends.

‘I then took leave of my lord, and returned to Paris to learn
intelligence respecting my challenge. I there found, at the hôtel of the
lord de Gaucourt, in the hands of Jean d’Olmedo his esquire, your
letters, which had been brought thither after my departure for Arragon.
Why they were brought hither after I had set out, I shall not say any
thing, but leave every one to judge of the circumstance as he may
please. Your letter has much astonished me, as well as other knights and
esquires who have seen it, considering your good reputation in chivalry
and strict observance of the laws of arms: you now wish to make
alterations in the treaty, without the advice of any one, yourself
choosing the judge of the field, and fixing the place of combat
according to your pleasure and advantage, which, as every one knows, is
highly improper. In regard to the other letters that were found lying at
the hôtel de Gaucourt at Paris, underneath is the answer to them.’


    CONCLUSION OF THE SECOND LETTER OF THE ARRAGONIAN ESQUIRE.

‘In answer to the first part of your letter, wherein you say you have
sent me letters and a passport to fulfil my engagement in arms, at the
place and on the day that you have been pleased to fix on,—know for
certain, and on my faith, that I have never received other letters than
those given me at the hôtel de Gaucourt the 12th day of March, nor have
I ever seen any passport. Doubtless, had I received your letters, you
would very speedily have had my answers,—for it is the object nearest my
heart to have this deed of arms accomplished; and for this have I twice
travelled from my own country, a distance of two hundred and fifty
leagues, at much inconvenience and great expense, as is well known.

‘In your letters, you inform me, that you have fixed on Calais as the
place where our meeting should be held in the presence of the noble and
puissant prince the earl of Somerset; and afterward your letters say,
that as he was otherwise occupied, your sovereign lord the king of
England, at your request, had nominated sir Hugh Lutrellier, lieutenant
to the earl of Somerset in his government of Calais, judge between us,
without ever having had my consent, or asking for it, which has
exceedingly, and with just cause, astonished me,—for how could you,
without my permission, take such advantages as to name the judge of the
field and fix on the place of combat?

‘It seems to me, that you are very unwilling to lose sight of your own
country; and yet our ancestors, those noble knights who have left us
such examples to follow, never acquired any great honours in their own
countries, nor were accustomed to make improper demands, which are but
checks to gallant deeds.

‘I am fully aware, that you cannot be so ignorant as not to know that
the choice of the judge, and of the time and place of combat, must be
made with the mutual assent of the two parties; and if I had received
your letters, you should sooner have heard this from me.

‘With regard to what you say, that you are ignorant whether the god of
love have banished me from his court, because I had absented myself from
France, where my first letter was written, and whether he have caused me
to change my mind,—I make known to you, that assuredly, without any
dissembling, I shall never, in regard to this combat, change my mind so
long as GOD may preserve my life; nor have there ever been any of my
family who have not always acted in such wise as became honest men and
gentlemen. When the appointed day shall come, which, through GOD’s aid,
it shall shortly, unless it be by your own fault, I believe you will
need good courage to meet a man whom you have suspected of having
retracted his word. I therefore beg such expressions may not be used, as
they are unproductive of good, and unbecoming knights and gentlemen, but
attend solely to the deeds of arms of which you have given me hopes.

‘I make known to you, that it has been told me that you entered the
lists at Calais alone as if against me, who was ignorant of every
circumstance, and three hundred leagues distant from you. If I had acted
in a similar way to you in the country where I then was (which GOD
forbid), I believe my armour would have been little the worse for it,
and my lances have remained as sound as yours were. You would
undoubtedly have won the prize. I must, in truth, suppose, that this
your extraordinary enterprise was not undertaken with the mature
deliberation of friends, nor will it ever be praised by any who may
perchance hear of it. Not, however, that I conclude from this that you
want to make a colourable show by such fictions, and avoid keeping the
promise you made of delivering me;—and I earnestly entreat you will
fulfil the engagement you have entered into by your letters to me, for
on that I rest my delight and hope of deliverance.

‘Should you not be desirous of accomplishing this, I have not a doubt
but many english knights would have engaged so to do, had you not at
first undertaken it. Make no longer any excuses on account of the
letters you have sent me, for I have explained wherein the fault lay. I
am ready to maintain and defend my honour; and as there is nothing I
have written contrary to truth, I wish not to make any alteration in
what I have said.

‘Because I would not be so presumptuous to make choice of a place
without your assent, I offer the combat before that most excellent and
sovereign prince my lord the king of Arragon, or before the kings of
Spain[20], Portugal or Navarre; and should none of these princes be
agreeable to you to select as our judge, to the end that I may not
separate you far from your country, your lady and mine, to whose wishes
I will conform to the utmost of my power, I am ready to go to Boulogne
on your coming to Calais,—and then the governors of these two places, in
behalf of each of us, shall appoint the proper time and place for the
fulfilment of our engagement according to the terms of my letter, which
I am prepared to accomplish, with the aid of GOD, of our Lady, of my
lord St Michael and my lord St George.

‘Since I am so very far from my native country, I shall wait here for
your answer until the end of the month of August next ensuing; and in
the mean time, out of compliment to you, I shall no longer wear the
stump of the greve fastened to my leg, although many have advised to the
contrary. The month of August being passed without hearing
satisfactorily from you, I shall replace the greve on my leg, and shall
disperse my challenge throughout your kingdom, or wherever else I may
please, until I shall have found a person to deliver me from my penance.
That you may place greater confidence in what I have written, I have put
to these letters the seal of my arms, and to the parts marked A, B, C,
my sign manual, which parts were done and written at Paris the 4th day
of September 1401.’


    THE CHALLENGE OF THE ARRAGONIAN ESQUIRE.

‘In the name of the holy Trinity, the blessed virgin Mary, of my lord St
Michael the archangel, and of my lord St George,—I, Michel d’Orris,
esquire, a native of the kingdom of Arragon, make known to all the
knights of England, that, to exalt my name and honour, I am seeking
deeds of arms.

‘I know full well, that a noble chivalry exists in England,—and I am
desirous of making acquaintance with the members of it, and learning
from them feats of arms. I therefore require from you, in the name of
knighthood, and by the thing you love most, that you will deliver me
from my vow by such deeds of arms as I shall propose.

‘First, to enter the lists on foot, and perform the deeds specified in
my first letter; and I offer, in order to shorten the matter, to show my
willingness and diligence to present myself before your governor of
Calais within two months after I shall have received your answer sealed
with the seal of your arms, if GOD should grant me life and health. And
I will likewise send, within these two months, the two helmets, two
saddles, and the measure of the staves to the battle-axes and spears.

‘I beg of that knight, who, from good will, may incline to deliver me,
to send me a speedy, honourable, and agreeable answer, such as I shall
expect from such noble personages. Have forwarded to me a good and
sufficient passport for myself and my companions, to the number of
thirty-five horses, at the same time with your answer, by Longueville,
the bearer of this letter; and that it may have the greater weight, I
have signed it with my sign manual, and sealed it with my arms, dated
Paris, the 1st day of January, 1402.’


    THE FOURTH LETTER OF THE ARRAGONIAN ESQUIRE.

‘To the honour of GOD, Father of all things, and the blessed virgin
Mary, his mother, whose aid I implore, that she would, through her
grace, comfort and assist me to the fulfilment of the enterprise I have
formed against all english knights,—I Michel d’Orris, a native of the
kingdom of Arragon, proclaim, as I have before done in the year 1400,
like as one abstracted from all cares, having only the remembrance
before me of the great glories our predecessors in former times acquired
from the excellent prowess they displayed in numberless deeds of arms;
and longing in my heart to gain some portion of their praise, I made
dispositions to perform some deeds of arms with such english knight who
by his prowess might deliver me from my vow. My challenge was accepted
by a noble and honourable personage called sir John Prendergast, an
english knight, as may be seen by the letters I have received from him.
And that the conclusion I draw may be clearly seen, I have incorporated
my letters with the last letters the said sir John Prendergast has
lately sent me, as they include every circumstance relative to the fact.
These letters, with my third letter, I sent back by Berry king at arms
to Calais, to be delivered to sir John Prendergast.

‘The herald, on his return, brought me for answer, that he had been told
by the most potent prince the earl of Somerset, governor of Calais, that
he had, within the month of August, sent answers to my former letters to
Boulogne, although the enterprise had not been completed. In honour,
therefore, to this excellent prince, the governor of Calais, who through
humility had taken charge to send the letters to Boulogne (as reported
to me by the king at arms), by Faulcon king at arms in England, and in
honour of chivalry, and that on no future occasion it may be said I was
importunately pressing in my pursuit, I have waited for the space of one
month after the expiration of the above term, for the delivery of this
answer; and that my willingness and patience may be notorious, and
approved by every one, I have hereafter inserted copies of all my
letters. If, therefore, you do not now deliver me, I shall no more write
to England on this subject,—for I hold your conduct as very discourteous
and ungentlemanly, when you have so often received my request, as well
by the poursuivant Aly, at present called Heugueville, in the letters
delivered by him in England in the year 1401, as by other similar ones
presented you by the poursuivant Graville, reciting my first general
challenge, drawn up at the hôtel of my lord de Gaucourt at Plessis, the
12th day of May 1402, and by other letters sent by me to you by Berry
king at arms, and which were received by that most potent prince the
earl of Somerset, governor of Calais, written at Paris the 22d day of
July 1402, which is apparent by these presents, and by my other letters
written from Paris the 12th day of June 1403, which are here copied,
presented by the herald Heugueville, to the most potent prince the earl
of Somerset, governor of Calais. To all which letters I have not found
any one knight to send me his sealed answer and acceptance of my
propositions.

‘I may therefore freely say, that I have not met with any fellowship or
friendship where so much chivalry abounds as in the kingdom of England,
although I have come from so distant a country, and prosecuted my
request for nearly two years; and that I must necessarily return to my
own country without making any acquaintance with you, for which I have a
great desire, as is clear from the tenor of all my letters. Should I
thus depart from you without effecting my object, I shall have few
thanks to give you, considering the pain I am suffering, and have
suffered for so long a time. If I do not receive an answer from you
within fifteen days after the date of this present letter, my intention
is, under the good pleasure of GOD, of our Lady, of my lords St Michael
and St George, to return to my much-redoubted and sovereign lord the
king of Arragon. Should you, within fifteen days, have any thing to
write to me, I shall be found at the hôtel of my lord the provost of
Paris.

‘I have nothing more to add, but to entreat you will have me in your
remembrance, and recollect the pain I am suffering. To add confidence to
this letter, I have signed it with my sign manual, and sealed it with
the seal of my arms. I have also caused copies to be made of our
correspondence, marked A, B, C, one of which I have retained. Written at
Paris, the 10th day of May, 1403.’

In consequence of this letter, Perrin de Loharent, sergeant at arms to
the king of England, calling himself a proxy in this business for the
english knight, sent an answer to the esquire of Arragon, conceived in
such terms as these:

‘To the most noble esquire, Michel d’Orris. I signify to you, on the
part of my lord John Prendergast, that if you will promptly pay him all
the costs and charges he has been at to deliver you by deeds of arms,
according to the proposals in your letter, which deeds have not been
accomplished from your own fault, he will cheerfully comply with your
request; otherwise know, that he will not take any further steps towards
it, nor suffer any knight or esquire, on this side of the sea, to
deliver you, or send you any answer to your letter. If, however, you
send him five hundred marcs sterling for his expenses, which he declares
they have amounted to, I certify that you shall not wait any length of
time before you be delivered by the deeds of arms offered in your
challenge.

‘I therefore advise you as a gentleman, that should you not think proper
to remit the amount of the expenses, you be careful not to speak
slightingly of the english chivalry, nor repeat that you could not find
an english knight to accept of your offer of combat, as you have said in
your last letter; for should that expression be again used, I inform
you, on the part of sir John Prendergast, that he will be always ready
to maintain the contrary in the defence of his own honour, which you
have handled somewhat too roughly, according to the opinion of our lords
acquainted with the truth, who think sir John has acted like a prudent
and honourable man. You will send your answer to this letter, and what
may be your future intentions, by Châlons the herald, the bearer of
these presents; and that you may have full confidence in their contents,
I have signed and sealed them myself at Paris in the year 1404.’

This affair, notwithstanding the letters that have been reported, never
came to any other conclusion.



                               CHAP. III.

    GREAT PARDONS[21] GRANTED AT ROME.


During this year, the court of Rome granted many pardons, whither an
infinity of persons went from all parts of Christendom to receive them.
An universal mortality took place about the time, which caused the
deaths of multitudes; and in the number, very many of the pilgrims
suffered from it at Rome.



                             [A. D. 1401.]

                               CHAP. IV.

    JOHN OF MONTFORT, DUKE OF BRITTANY, DIES.—THE EMPEROR
        DEPARTS FROM PARIS.—ISABELLA QUEEN OF ENGLAND RETURNS TO
        FRANCE.


At the beginning of this year, John of Montfort, duke of Brittany, died,
and was succeeded by his eldest son John, married to a daughter of the
king of France, and who had several brothers and sisters[22]. About the
same time, the emperor of Constantinople[23], who had made a long stay
at Paris, at the charges of the king of France, set out, with all his
attendants, for England, where he was very honourably received by king
Henry and his princes; thence he returned to his own country[24].

Many able ambassadors had, at various times, been sent from France to
England, and from England to France, chiefly to negotiate with the king
of England for the return of queen Isabella, daughter to the king of
France and widow of king Richard II. with liberty to enjoy the dower
that had been settled upon her by the articles of marriage. The
ambassadors at length brought the matter to a conclusion, and the queen
was conducted to France by the lord Thomas Percy, constable of England,
having with him many knights, esquires, ladies and damsels, to accompany
her.

She was escorted to the town of Leulinghem, between Boulogne and Calais,
and there delivered to Waleran count of Saint Pol[25], governor of
Picardy, with whom were the bishop of Chartres and the lord de
Heugueville to receive her. The damsel of Montpensier, sister to the
count de la Marche, and the damsel of Luxembourg, sister to the count de
St Pol, with other ladies and damsels sent by the queen of France, were
likewise present. When both parties had taken leave of each other, the
count de St Pol conducted the queen and her attendants to the dukes of
Burgundy and Bourbon, who with a large company were waiting for them on
an eminence hard by.

She was received by them with every honour, and thence escorted to
Boulogne, and to Abbeville, where the duke of Burgundy, to celebrate her
return to France, made a grand banquet, and then, taking his leave of
her, he went back to Artois. The duke of Bourbon and the rest who had
been at this feast conducted her to the king and queen, her parents, at
Paris. She was most kindly received by them; but although it was said
that she was honourably sent back, yet there was not any dower or
revenue assigned her from England, which caused many of the french
princes to be dissatisfied with the king of England, and pressing with
the king of France to declare war against him.



                                CHAP. V.

    THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY, BY ORDERS FROM THE KING OF FRANCE,
        GOES INTO BRITTANY, AND THE DUKE OF ORLEANS TO
        LUXEMBOURG.—A QUARREL ENSUES BETWEEN THEM.


This same year, the duke of Burgundy went to Brittany to take possession
of it in the king’s name for the young duke. The country soon submitted
to him, and he continued his journey to Nantes to visit the
duchess-dowager, sister to the king of Navarre[26], who had entered into
engagements speedily to marry Henry IV. of England.

The duke was her uncle, and treated with her successfully for the
surrender of her dower lands to her children, on condition that she
received annually a certain sum of money in compensation. When this had
been concluded, and the duke had placed garrisons in the king’s name in
some of the strong places of the country, he returned to Paris, carrying
with him the young duke and his two brothers, who were graciously
received by the king and queen.

The duke of Orleans had at this time gone to take possession of the
duchy of Luxembourg[27], with the consent of the king of Bohemia, to
whom it belonged, and with whom he had concluded some private agreement.
Having placed his own garrisons in many of the towns and castles of this
duchy, he returned to France,—when shortly after a great quarrel took
place between the duke of Orleans and his uncle the duke of Burgundy;
and it rose to such a height that each collected a numerous body of men
at arms round Paris. At length, by the mediation of the queen and the
dukes of Berry and Bourbon, peace was restored, and the men at arms were
sent back to the places whence they had come.



                               CHAP. VI.

    CLEMENT DUKE OF BAVARIA IS ELECTED EMPEROR OF GERMANY,
        AND AFTERWARD CONDUCTED WITH A NUMEROUS RETINUE TO
        FRANKFORT.


This year, Clement duke of Bavaria[28] was elected emperor of Germany,
after the electors had censured and deposed the king of Bohemia. Clement
was conducted by them to Frankfort, with an escort of forty thousand
armed men, and laid siege to the town because it had been contrary to
his interests. He remained before it forty days, during which time an
epidemical disorder raged in his army, and carried off fifteen thousand
of his men. A treaty was begun at the expiration of the forty days, when
the town submitted to the emperor.

The towns of Cologne, Aix, and several more followed this example, and
gave him letters of assurance that his election had been legally and
properly made. He was after this crowned by the bishop of Mentz; and at
his coronation many princes and lords of the country made splendid
feasts, with tournaments and other amusements.

When these were over, the emperor sent his cousin-german the duke of
Bavaria, father to the queen of France, to Paris, to renew and confirm
the peace between him and the king of France. Duke Stephen was joyfully
received on his arrival at Paris by the queen and princes of the
blood,—but the king was at that time confined by illness.

When he had made his proposals, a day was fixed on to give him an
answer; and the princes told him, that in good truth they could not
conclude a peace to the prejudice of their fair cousin the king of
Bohemia, who had been duly elected and crowned emperor of Germany. When
the duke of Bavaria had received this answer, he returned through
Hainault to the new emperor. He related to him all that had passed in
France, and the answer he had received, with which he was not well
pleased, but he could not amend it.

The emperor, soon after this, proposed marching a powerful army, under
his own command, to Lombardy, to gain possession of the passes, and sent
a detachment before him for this purpose, but his troops were met by an
army from the duke of Milan[29], who slew many, and took numbers
prisoners. Among the latter was sir Girard, lord of Heraucourt, marshal
to the duke of Austria, and several other persons of distinction. This
check broke up the intended expedition of the emperor.



                               CHAP. VII.

    HENRY OF LANCASTER, KING OF ENGLAND, COMBATS THE PERCIES AND
        WELSHMEN, WHO HAD INVADED HIS KINGDOM, AND DEFEATS THEM.


About the month of March, in this year, great dissensions arose between
Henry, king of England, and the family of Percy and the Welsh, in which
some of the Scots took part, and entered Northumberland with a
considerable force. King Henry had raised a large army to oppose them,
and had marched thither to give them battle; but, at the first attack,
his vanguard was discomfited. This prevented the second division from
advancing, and it being told the king, who commanded the rear, he was
animated with more than usual courage, from perceiving his men to
hesitate, and charged the enemy with great vigour. His conduct was so
gallant and decisive that many of the nobles of both parties declared he
that day slew, with his own hand, thirty-six men at arms.

He was thrice unhorsed by the earl of Douglas’s spear, and would have
been taken or killed by the earl, had he not been defended and rescued
by his own men. The lord Thomas Percy was there slain, and his nephew
Henry made prisoner, whom the king ordered instantly to be put to death
before his face. The earl of Douglas was also taken, and many others.
After this victory, king Henry departed from the field of battle, joyful
at the successful event of the day. He sent a body of his men at arms to
Wales, to besiege a town of that country which was favourable to the
Percies[30].



                             [A. D. 1402.]

                              CHAP. VIII.

    JOHN DE VERCHIN, A KNIGHT OF GREAT RENOWN, AND SENESCHAL OF
        HAINAULT, SENDS, BY HIS HERALD, A CHALLENGE INTO DIVERS
        COUNTRIES, PROPOSING A DEED OF ARMS.


At the beginning of this year, John de Verchin[31], a knight of high
renown and seneschal of Hainault, sent letters, by his herald, to the
knights and esquires of different countries, to invite them to a trial
of skill in arms, which he had vowed to hold, the contents of which
letters were as follows:

‘To all knights and esquires, gentlemen of name and arms, without
reproach, I Jean de Verchin, seneschal of Hainault, make known, that
with the aid of GOD, of our Lady, of my lord St George, and of the lady
of my affections, I intend being at Coucy the first Sunday of August
next ensuing, unless prevented by lawful and urgent business, ready on
the morrow to make trial of the arms hereafter mentioned, in the
presence of my most redoubted lord the duke of Orleans, who has granted
me permission to hold the meeting at the above place.

‘If any gentleman, such as above described, shall come to this town to
deliver me from my vow, we will perform our enterprise mounted on
horseback, on war saddles without girths. Each may wear what armour he
pleases, but the targets must be without covering or lining of iron or
steel. The arms to be spears of war, without fastening or covering, and
swords. The attack to be with spears in or out of their rests; and each
shall lay aside his target, and draw his sword without assistance.
Twenty strokes of the sword to be given without intermission, and we
may, if we please, seize each other by the body.

‘From respect to the gentleman, and to afford him more pleasure, for
having had the goodness to accept my invitation, I promise to engage him
promptly on foot, unless bodily prevented, without either of us taking
off any part of the armour which we had worn in our assaults on
horseback: we may, however, change our vizors, and lengthen the plates
of our armour, according to the number of strokes with the sword and
dagger, as may be thought proper, when my companion shall have
determined to accomplish my deliverance by all these deeds of arms,
provided, however, that the number of strokes may be gone through during
the day, at such intermissions as I shall point out.

‘In like manner, the number of strokes with battle-axes shall be agreed
on; but, in regard to this combat, each may wear the armour he pleases.
Should it happen (as I hope it will not), that in the performance of
these deeds of arms, one of us be wounded, insomuch that during the day
he shall be unable to complete the combat with the arms then in use, the
adverse party shall not make any account of it, but shall consider it as
if nothing had passed.

‘When I shall have completed these courses, or when the day shall be
ended, with the aid of GOD, of our Lady, of my lord St George, and of my
lady, I shall set out from the said town, unless bodily prevented, on a
pilgrimage to my lord St James at Compostella. Whatever gentleman of
rank I may meet going to Galicia, or returning to the aforesaid town of
Coucy, that may incline to do me the honour and grace to deliver me with
the same arms as above, and appoint an honourable judge, without taking
me more than twenty leagues from my strait road, or obliging me to
return, and giving me assurance from the judge, that the combat, with
the aforesaid arms, shall take place within five days from my arrival in
the town appointed for it,—I promise, with the aid of GOD and my lady,
if not prevented by bodily infirmity, to deliver them promptly on foot,
as soon as they shall have completed the enterprise, according to the
manner specified, with such a number of strokes with the sword, dagger
and battle-axe, as may be thought proper to fix upon.

‘Should it happen, after having agreed with a gentleman to perform these
deeds of arms, as we are proceeding toward the judge he had fixed upon,
that I should meet another gentleman willing to deliver me, who should
name a judge nearer my direct road than the first, I would in that case
perform my trial in arms with him whose judge was the nearest; and when
I had acquitted myself to him, I would then return to accomplish my
engagement with the first, unless prevented by any bodily infirmity.
Such will be my conduct during the journey, and I shall hold myself
acquitted to perform before each judge my deeds of arms; and no
gentleman can enter the lists with me more than once,—and the staves of
our arms shall be of equal lengths, which I will provide and distribute
when required. All the blows must be given from the bottom of the
plate-armour to the head: none others will be allowed as legal.

‘That all gentlemen who may incline to deliver me from my vow may know
the road I propose to follow, I inform them, that under the will of God,
I mean to travel through France to Bordeaux,—thence to the country of
Foix, to the kingdoms of Navarre and Castille, to the shrine of my lord
St James at Compostella. On my return, if it please God, I will pass
through the kingdom of Portugal,—thence to Valencia, Arragon, Catalonia,
and Avignon, and recross the kingdom of France, having it understood if
I may be permitted to travel through all these countries in security, to
perform my vow, excepting the kingdom of France and county of Hainault.

‘That this proposal may have the fullest assurance, I have put my seal
to this letter, and signed it with my own hand, in the year of the
incarnation of our Lord, the 1st day of June, 1402.’

The seneschal, in consequence of this challenge, went to Coucy, where he
was received very graciously by the duke of Orleans; but no one appeared
to enter the lists with him on the appointed day. In a few days, he set
out on his pilgrimage to the shrine of St James, during which he
performed his deeds of arms in seven places, during seven days, and
behaved himself so gallantly that those princes who were appointed
judges of the field were greatly satisfied with him.



                               CHAP. IX.

    THE DUKE OF ORLEANS, BROTHER TO THE KING OF FRANCE, SENDS A
        CHALLENGE TO THE KING OF ENGLAND.—THE ANSWER HE
        RECEIVES.


In the year 1402, Louis duke of Orleans, brother to the king of France,
sent a letter to the king of England, proposing a combat between them,
of the following tenor:

‘I Louis, by the grace of God, son and brother to the kings of France,
duke of Orleans, write and make known to you, that with the aid of God
and the blessed Trinity, in the desire which I have to gain renown, and
which you in like manner should feel, considering idleness as the bane
of lords of high birth who do not employ themselves in arms, and
thinking I can no way better seek renown than by proposing to you to
meet me at an appointed place, each of us accompanied with one hundred
knights and esquires, of name and arms without reproach, there to combat
together until one of the parties shall surrender; and he to whom God
shall grant the victory shall do with his prisoners as it may please
him. We will not employ any incantations that are forbidden by the
church, but make every use of the bodily strength granted us by God,
having armour as may be most agreeable to every one for the security of
his person, and with the usual arms; that is to say, lance, battle-axe,
sword and dagger, and each to employ them as he shall think most to his
advantage, without aiding himself by any bodkins, hooks, bearded darts,
poisoned needles or razors, as may be done by persons unless they be
positively ordered to the contrary.

‘To accomplish this enterprise, I make known to you, that if GOD permit,
and under the good pleasure of our Lady and my lord St Michael, I
propose (after knowing your intentions) to be at my town of Angoulême,
accompanied by the aforesaid number of knights and esquires. Now, if
your courage be such as I think it is, for the fulfilment of this deed
of arms, you may come to Bordeaux, when we may depute properly-qualified
persons to fix on a spot for the combat, giving to them full power to
act therein as if we ourselves were personally present.

‘Most potent and noble prince, let me know your will in regard to this
proposal, and have the goodness to send me as speedy an answer as may
be; for in all affairs of arms, the shortest determination is the best,
especially for the kings of France and great lords and princes; and as
many delays may arise from business of importance, which must be
attended to, as well as doubts respecting the veracity of our letters,
that you may know I am resolved, with God’s help, on the accomplishment
of this deed of arms, I have signed this letter with my own hand, and
sealed it with the seal of my arms. Written at my castle of Coucy[32],
the 7th day of August 1402.’


    THE ANSWER OF KING HENRY TO THE LETTER OF THE DUKE OF
        ORLEANS.

‘Henry, by the grace of God, king of England and France, and lord of
Ireland, to the high and mighty prince Louis, duke of Orleans.

‘We write to inform you, that we have seen your letter, containing a
request to perform a deed of arms; and, from the expressions contained
therein, we perceive that it is addressed to us, which has caused us no
small surprise, for the following reasons.

‘First, on account of the truce agreed on, and sworn to, between our
very dear lord and cousin king Richard, our predecessor, whom God
pardon! and your lord and brother,—in which treaty, you are yourself a
party. Secondly, on account of the alliance that was made between us at
Paris,—for the due observance of which you made oath, in the hands of
our well-beloved knights and esquires, sir Thomas de Spinguchen[33], sir
Thomas Ramson, and John Morbury, and likewise gave to them letters
signed with your great seal, reciting this treaty of alliance, which I
shall hereafter more fully state.

‘Since you have thought proper, without any cause, to act contrary to
this treaty, we shall reply as follows, being desirous that God, and all
the world, should know it has never been our intention to act any way
contradictory to what we have promised. We therefore inform you, that we
have annulled the letter of alliance received from you, and throw aside
henceforward all love and affection toward you; for it seems to us that
no prince, lord, knight, or any person whatever, ought to demand a
combat from him with whom a treaty of friendship exists.

‘In reply to your letter, we add, that considering the very high rank in
which it has pleased God to place us, we are not bound to answer any
such demands unless made by persons of equal rank with ourselves. With
regard to what you say, that we ought to accept your proposal to avoid
idleness,—it is true we are not so much employed in arms and honourable
exploits as our noble predecessors have been; but the all-powerful God
may, when he pleases, make us follow their steps, and we, through the
indulgence of his grace, have not been so idle but that we have been
enabled to defend our honour.

‘With regard to the proposal of meeting you at a fixed place with one
hundred knights and esquires of name and arms, and without reproach, we
answer, that until this moment none of our royal progenitors have been
thus challenged by persons of less rank than themselves, nor have they
ever employed their arms with one hundred or more persons in such a
cause; for it seems to us that a royal prince ought only to do such
things as may redound to the honour of God, and to the profit of all
Christendom and his own kingdom, and not through vain glory nor selfish
advantage. We are determined to preserve the state God has intrusted to
us,—and whenever we may think it convenient we shall visit our
possessions on your side of the sea, accompanied by such numbers of
persons as we may please; at which time, if you shall think proper, you
may assemble as many persons as you may judge expedient to acquire
honour in the accomplishment of all your courageous desires,—and should
it please GOD, our Lady, and my lord St George, you shall not depart
until your request be so fully complied with that you shall find
yourself satisfied by a combat between us two personally so long as it
may please God to suffer it, which mode I shall prefer to prevent any
greater effusion of Christian blood. God knows, we will that no one
should be ignorant that this our answer does not proceed from pride or
presumption of heart, which every wise man who holds his honour dear
should avoid, but solely to abase that haughtiness and over presumption
of any one, whosoever he may be, that prevents him from knowing himself.
Should you wish that those of your party be without reproach, be more
cautious in future of your letters, your promises and your seal, than
you have hitherto been. That you may know this is our own proper answer,
formed from our knowledge of you, and that we will maintain our right
whenever God pleases, we have sealed with our arms this present letter.
Given at our court of London, the 5th day of December, in the year of
Grace 1402, and in the 4th of our reign.’


    THE LETTER OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE DUKE OF ORLEANS AND THE
        DUKE OF LANCASTER.

‘Louis, duke of Orleans, count de Valois, Blois and de Beaumont, to all
whom these presents may come, health and greeting. We make known by
them, that the most potent prince, and our very dear cousin, Henry, duke
of Lancaster and Hereford, earl of Derby, Lincoln, Leicester and
Northampton, has given us his love and friendship. Nevertheless, being
desirous of strengthening the ties of this affection between us, seeing
that nothing in this world can be more delectable or profitable:

‘In the name of God and the most holy Trinity, which is a fair example
and sound foundation of perfect love and charity, and without whose
grace nothing can be profitably concluded,—to the end that the form and
manner of this our friendship may be reputed honourable, we have caused
the terms of it to be thus drawn up. First, we both hold it just and
right to except from it all whom we shall think proper; and conformably
thereto we except, on our part, the following persons: first, our very
mighty and puissant prince and lord Charles, by the grace of God king of
France; my lord the dauphin, his eldest son, and all the other children
of my foresaid lord; the queen of France; our very dear uncles the dukes
of Berry, Burgundy and Bourbon; those most noble princes, our dear
cousins, the king of the Romans and of Bohemia; the king of Hungary, his
brother and their uncles, and Becop[34] marquis of Moravia; and also all
our cousins, and others of our blood, now living, or that may be born,
as well males as females, and our very dear father the duke of Milan,
whose daughter we have married. This relationship must make us
favourable to his honour. Also those noble princes, and our very dear
cousins, the kings of Castille and of Scotland, with all the other
allies of our foresaid lord. To whom must likewise be added our very
dear cousin the duke of Lorraine[35], the count of Cleves[36], the lord
de Clisson, and all our vassals bound to us by faith and oath, whom we
hold ourselves obliged to guard from ill, since they have submitted to
our obedience and commands.

‘Item, The duke of Lancaster and myself will be always united in the
strictest ties of love and affection, as loyal and true friends should
be.

‘Item, Each of us will be, at all times and places, friendly to one
another, and to our friends, and enemies to our enemies, as will be
honourable and praise-worthy.

‘Item, We will each, in all times and places, aid and assist the other
in the defence of his person, his fortune, honour and estate, as well by
words as deeds, diligently and carefully in the most honourable manner.

‘Item, In times of war and discord we will mutually defend each other
against all princes, lords and barons, with the utmost good will, and
also against any corporation, college or university, by every means in
our power, engines, councils, force, men at arms, subsidies, or by
whatever other means we may think most efficient to make war on and
oppose the enemies of either of us; and we will exert ourselves to the
utmost against every person whatever, excepting those who have been
before excepted, in every lawful and honourable manner.

‘Item, All the above articles we will strictly observe so long as the
truces shall continue between my aforesaid sovereign lord and king and
the king of England, and should a more solid peace be formed, so long as
that peace shall last, without infringing an article. In witness of
which we have caused these articles to be drawn up, and have appended
our seal thereto. Done at Paris the 17th day of June, in the year of
Grace 1396.’


    THE SECOND LETTER OF THE DUKE OF ORLEANS, IN REPLY TO THAT
        FROM THE KING OF ENGLAND.

‘High and mighty prince Henry, king of England,—I, Louis, by the grace
of God, son and brother to the kings of France, duke of Orleans, write,
to make known to you, that I received, as a new year’s gift, the first
day of January, by the hands of your herald Lancaster, king at arms, the
letter you have written to me, in answer to the one I sent to you by
Champagne, king at arms, and Orleans my herald, and have heard its
contents.

‘In regard to your ignorance, or pretended ignorance, whether my letter
could have been addressed to you, your name was on it, such as you
received at the font, and by which you were always called by your
parents when they were alive. I had not indeed given you your new titles
at length, because I do not approve of the manner whereby you have
attained them,—but know that my letter was addressed to you.

‘In regard to your being surprised at my requesting to perform a deed of
arms with you during the existence of the truce between my most
redoubted lord the king of France and the high and mighty prince king
Richard, my nephew, and your liege lord lately deceased, (God knows by
whose orders) as well as an alliance of friendship subsisting between
us, of which you have sent me a copy,—that treaty is now at an end by
your own fault; first, by your having undertaken your enterprise against
your sovereign lord king Richard, whom God pardon! who was the ally of
my lord the king of France by marriage with his daughter, as well as by
written articles, sealed with their seals, to the observance of which
the kindred on each side made oath, in the presence of the two monarchs
and their relations, in their different countries.

‘You may have seen in those articles, of which you sent me a copy, that
the allies of my said lord the king were excepted, and may judge whether
I can honestly now have any friendship for you; for at the time I made
the said alliance I never conceived it possible you could have done
against your king what it is well known you have done.

‘In regard to your objection, that no knight, of whatever rank he may
be, ought to request a deed of arms until he shall have returned the
articles of alliance, supposing such to exist between them, I wish to
know whether you rendered to your lord, king Richard, the oath of
fidelity you made to him before you proceeded in the manner you have
done against his person.

‘In respect to your throwing up my friendship, know, that from the
moment I was informed of the acts you committed, against your liege
lord, I had not any expectation that you could suppose you would place
any dependance on me,—for you must have known that I could not have any
desire to preserve your friendship.

‘With regard to your high situation, I do not think the divine virtues
have placed you there. God may have dissembled with you, and have set
you on a throne, like many other princes, whose reign has ended in
confusion. And, in consideration of my own honour, I do not wish to be
compared with you.

‘You say, you shall be always eager to defend your honour, which has
been ever unblemished. Enough on that head is sufficiently known in all
countries.

‘As for your intentions of visiting your possessions on this side of the
sea, without informing me of your arrival, I assure you, that you shall
not be there long without hearing from me; for, if God permit, I will
accomplish what I have proposed, if it be not your fault.

‘In regard to your telling me, that your progenitors have not thus been
accustomed to be challenged by those of less degree than themselves,—who
have been my ancestors, I need not be my own herald, for they are well
known to all the world. And in respect to my personal honour, through
the mercy of God, it is without reproach, as I have always acted like a
loyal and honest man, as well toward my God as to my king and his realm:
whoever has acted, or may act otherwise, though he hold the universe in
his hand, is worthless, and undeserving of respect.

‘You tell me, that a prince ought to make his every action redound to
the honour of God, to the common advantage of all Christendom, and the
particular welfare of his kingdom, and not through vain glory, nor for
selfish purposes. I reply, that you say well; but if you had acted
accordingly in your own country, many things done there by you, or by
your orders, would not have taken place.

‘How could you suffer my much redoubted lady the queen of England to
return so desolate to this country after the death of her lord,
despoiled, by your rigour and cruelty, of her dower, which you detain
from her, and likewise the portion she carried hence on her marriage?
The man who seeks to gain honour is always the defender and guardian of
the rights of widows and damsels of virtuous life, such as my niece was
known to lead. And as I am so nearly related to her, acquitting myself
toward God and toward her, as a relation, I reply, that to avoid
effusion of blood, I will cheerfully meet you in single combat, or with
any greater number you may please, and that through the aid of God, of
the blessed virgin Mary, and of my lord St Michael, so soon as I shall
receive your answer to this letter, whether body to body or with any
greater number than ourselves, you shall find me doing my duty, for the
preservation of my honour, in such wise as the case may require.

‘I return you thanks, in the name of those of my party, for the greater
care you seem to have of their healths than you had for that of your
sovereign and liege lord.

‘You tell me, that he who is not void of discernment in regard to his
own condition will be desirous of selecting irreproachable companions.
Know, that I am not ignorant who I am, nor who are my companions; and I
inform you, that you will find us loyal and honest, for such we have
been ever reported. And, thanks to God, we have never done any thing by
word or deed but what has been becoming loyal gentlemen. Do you and your
people look to yourselves, and write me back your intention as to what I
have offered, which I am impatient to know. That you may be assured this
letter has been written by me, and that, through God’s aid, I am
resolved to execute my purpose, I have put to it the seal of my arms,
and signed it with my own hand, on the morrow of the feast of our Lady,
the 26th day of March, 1402.’


    THE REPLY OF KING HENRY TO THIS SECOND LETTER OF THE DUKE OF
        ORLEANS.

‘Henry, king of England and lord of Ireland, to Louis de Valois, duke of
Orleans.

‘We write to inform you, that we have received, the last day of this
present month of April, the letter you have sent to us by Champagne king
at arms and your herald Orleans, intending it as an answer to the one
from us, received by you, on the 26th day of last January, from the
hands of Lancaster king at arms, our herald. Your letter is dated the
26th day of March, in the year 1402, and we have heard its contents.

‘Considering all things, more especially the situation in which it has
pleased God to place us, we ought not to make you any reply to the
request you make, nor to the replications since your first letter.
However, as you attack our honour, we send you this answer, recollecting
we did reply to your first request, which you pretended arose from the
hot spirit of youth, and your earnest desire to gain renown in arms. It
seems by your present letter, that this desire has taken a frivolous
turn, and that you wish for a war of words, thinking that by defaming
our person, you may overwhelm us with confusion, which God grant may
fall, and more justly, on yourself! We are therefore moved, and not
without cause, to make answer to the principal points of your letter, in
manner as will hereafter to you more plainly appear, considering that it
does not become our state nor honour to do so by chiding; but in respect
to such frivolous points, replete with malice, we shall not condescend
to make any answer, except declaring that all your reproaches are false.

‘First, in regard to the dignity we hold, that you write you do not
approve it, nor the manner by which we have obtained it. We are
certainly very much surprised at this, for we made you fully acquainted
with our intentions before we departed from France; at which time you
approved of it, and even promised us aid against our very dear lord and
cousin, king Richard, whom God pardon! We would not accept of your
assistance; and we hold your approbation or disapprobation of our
undertaking of little worth, since it has pleased God, by his gracious
favour, to approve of it, as well as the inhabitants of our kingdom.
This is a sufficient reply to such as would deny our right,—and I am
confident in the benign grace of God, who has hitherto guarded us, that
he will continue his gracious mercy and bring the matter to so happy a
conclusion that you shall be forced to acknowledge the dignity we enjoy,
and the right we have to it.

‘In regard to that passage in your letter, where you speak of the
decease of our very dear cousin and lord, whom God pardon! adding, God
knows how it happened, and by whom caused,—we know not with what intent
this expression has been used; but if you mean, or dare to say, that his
death was caused by our order or consent, it is false, and will be a
falsehood every time you utter it,—and this we are ready to prove,
through the grace of God, in personal combat, if you be willing and have
the courage to dare it.

‘As to your saying, that you would have preserved the alliance made
between us, if we had not undertaken such offensive measures against our
very dear lord and cousin, who was so intimately related to your lord
and brother by marriage and treaties sealed with their seals, adding,
that at the time you made the alliance with us, you never imagined we
should have acted against our very dear lord and cousin, as is publicly
known to have been done by us,—we reply, we have done nothing against
him but what we would have dared to do before God and the whole world.

‘You say, that we might have seen in the bond of alliance what persons
were excepted in it, and whether our very dear and well beloved cousin,
the lady Isabella, your much honoured lady and niece, was not
comprehended in those excepted. We know that you excepted them in
general; but when, at your request, I entered into this alliance, you
did not make any specific exceptions of them, like to what you did
respecting your fair uncle of Burgundy; and yet the principal cause of
your seeking our friendship, and requesting this alliance to be made,
was your dislike to your uncle of Burgundy, which we can prove whenever
we please, and then all loyal men will see if you have not been
defective in your conduct as to our alliance; and though hypocrisy may
not avail before God, it may serve to blind mankind.

‘When you maintain that, after you were acquainted with the pretended
act done by us against our aforesaid lord and cousin, you lost all hope
that I would abide by any agreement entered into with you, or any other
person, we must suppose that you no longer wish to preserve any
friendship with us; but we marvel greatly that some time after we were
in possession of the dignity to which it has pleased God to raise us,
you should send to us one of your knights wearing your badges, to assure
us that you were eager to remain our very sincere friend, and that,
after your lord and brother, the friendship of no prince would be so
agreeable to you as ours. You charged him also to assure us, that the
bonds of alliance between us had been sealed with our great seals, which
he said you would not that any Frenchman should know.

‘You have afterward made us acquainted, by some of our vassals, with
your good inclinations, and the true friendship you bore us; but since
you wish not any connexion with us, considering the state we hold, (such
is your expression) we know not why we should wish your friendship,—for
what you formerly wrote to us does not correspond with your present
letters.

‘When you say, that in respect to the dignity we now enjoy, you suppose
that divine virtue has not assisted us, adding, that God may have
dissembled his intentions, and, like too many other princes, have caused
us to reign to our confusion,—assuredly many persons speak
thoughtlessly, and judge of others from themselves, so that the
all-powerful God may turn their judgments against themselves, and not
without cause. And as for the divine virtue having placed us on the
throne, we reply, that our Lord God, to whom we owe every praise and
duty, has shewn us more grace than we deserve; and it is solely to his
mercy and benignity we are indebted for what he has been pleased to
bestow upon us,—for certainly no sorceries nor witchcrafts could have
done it; and however you may doubt, we do not, but have the fullest
confidence that, through the grace of God, we have been placed where we
are.

‘In regard to your charge against us for our rigour against your niece,
and for having cruelly suffered her to depart from this country in
despair for the loss of her lord, and robbed her of her dower, which you
say we detain, after despoiling her of the money she brought hither,—God
knows, from whom nothing can be concealed, that so far from acting
towards her harshly, we have ever shewn her kindness and friendship; and
whoever shall dare say otherwise lies wickedly. We wish to God that you
may never have acted with greater rigour, unkindness, or cruelty,
towards any lady or damsel than we have done to her, and we believe it
would be the better for you.

‘As to the despair you say that she is in for the loss of our very dear
lord and cousin, we must answer as we have before done; and in regard to
her dower, of the seizure of which you complain, we are satisfied, that
if you had well examined the articles of the marriage you could not, if
you had spoken truth, have made this charge against us.

‘In regard to her money, it is notorious, that on her leaving this
kingdom we had made her such restitution of jewels and money, (much more
than she brought hither) that we hold ourselves acquitted; and we have,
beside, an acquittance under the seal of her father, our lord and
brother, drawn up in his council, and in your presence, as may be made
apparent to all the world, and prove that we have never despoiled her,
as you have falsely asserted.

‘You ought therefore to be more cautious in what you write: for no
prince should write any thing but what is the truth, and honourable to
himself, which is what you have not hitherto done. We have, however,
answered your letter very particularly, in such wise, that through the
aid of GOD, of our Lady, and of my lord Saint George, all men of honour
will think our reply satisfactory, and our honour preserved.

‘With regard to your companions, we have not any fault to find, for we
are not acquainted with them; but as to yourself, considering all
things, we do not repute very highly of you. And when you return thanks
to those of your family for having felt more pity than we have done for
our king and sovereign liege lord, we reply, that by the honour of GOD,
of our Lady, and of my lord St George, when you say so you lie falsely
and wickedly, for we hold his blood dearer to us than the blood of those
on your side, whatever you may falsely say to the contrary; and if you
say that his blood was not dear to us in his lifetime, we tell you that
you lie, and will falsely lie every time you assert it. This is known to
God, to whom we appeal, offering our body to combat against yours, in
our defence, as a loyal prince should do, if you be willing or dare to
prove it.

‘I wish to God that you had never done, or procured to be done, any
thing more against the person of your lord and brother, or his children,
than we have done against our late lord,—and in that case we believe
that you would find your conscience more at ease[37].

‘Although you think us undeserving of thanks for our conduct to those on
your side, we are persuaded that we have acted uprightly before God and
man, and not in the manner you falsely pretend,—considering that, after
our faithful lieges and subjects, we have good reason to love those of
France, from the just right God has given us to that crown; and we hope,
through his aid, to obtain possession of it. For their preservation, we
the more willingly shall accept a single combat with you, as it will
spare the effusion of blood, as a good shepherd should expose himself to
save his flock; whereas your pride and vain glory would triumph in their
death,—and, like the mercenary shepherd to whom the flock does not
belong, on seeing the wolf approach, you will take to flight, without
ever attending to the safety of your sheep, confirming the quarrel of
the two mothers before Solomon; that is to say, the true mother who had
pity on her child, while the other cruelly wished to have the child
divided, if the wise judge had not prevented it.

‘As you declare in your letter, that you are willing to meet us, body
against body, or with a greater or lesser number of men, in the defence
of your honour, we shall thank you to perform it, and make known to you,
that, through God’s assistance, you shall see the day when you shall not
depart without the deed being accomplished according to one or other of
these proposals, and to our honour.

‘Since you are desirous to have the time ascertained when we shall visit
our possessions on your side of the sea, we inform you, that whenever it
may please us, or we may judge it most expedient, we shall visit those
possessions accompanied by as many persons as we shall think proper, for
the honour of God, of ourself, and of our kingdom, which persons we
esteem as our loyal servants and subjects, and friends, to assert our
right,—opposing however, with God’s aid, our body against yours, in
defending our honour against the false and wicked aspersions you are
inclined to throw on it, if you have the courage to meet us, which, if
it please God, shall be soon, when you shall be known for what you are.

‘God knows, and we wish all the world to know, that this our answer does
not proceed from pride or presumption of heart, but from your having
made such false charges against us, and from our eager desire to defend
our right with every means that God, through his grace, has granted us.
We have therefore made the above answer; and that you may be assured of
its truth, we have sealed with our arms this present letter.’

Notwithstanding these letters and answers that passed between the king
of England and the duke of Orleans, they never personally met, and the
quarrel remained as before.



                                CHAP. X.

    WALERAN COUNT DE SAINT POL SENDS A CHALLENGE TO THE KING OF
        ENGLAND.


In this same year, Waleran count de St Pol sent a challenge to the king
of England, in the following words:

‘Most high and mighty prince Henry, duke of Lancaster,—I Waleran de
Luxembourg, count de Ligny and de St Pol, considering the affinity,
love, and esteem I bore the most high and potent prince Richard, king of
England, whose sister I married[38], and whose destruction you are
notoriously accused of, and greatly blamed for;—considering also the
disgrace I and my descendants would feel, as well as the indignation of
an all-powerful God, if I did not attempt to revenge the death of the
said king, my father-in-law;—

‘I make known to you by these presents, that I will annoy you by every
possible means in my power, and that personally, and by my friends,
relations and subjects, I will do you every mischief by sea and land,
beyond the limits of the kingdom of France, for the cause before said,
and no way for the acts that have taken place, and may hereafter take
place, between my very redoubted lord and sovereign, the king of France,
and the kingdom of England.

‘This I certify to you under my seal, given at my castle of Luxembourg,
the 10th day of February, in the year 1402.’

This letter was carried to the king of England by a herald of count
Waleran; and thereto the king, Henry, made answer, that he held his
menaces cheap, and that it was his will that count Waleran should enjoy
his country and his subjects.

The count de St Pol, having sent this challenge, made preparations to
begin the war against the king of England and his allies. He also caused
to be made, in his castle of Bohain, a figure to represent the earl of
Rutland[39], with an emblazoned coat of arms, and a portable gibbet,
which he got secretly conveyed to one of his forts in the country of the
Boulonois; and thence he caused them to be carried by Robinet de
Robretanges, Aliaume de Biurtin, and other experienced warriors, to the
gates of Calais. There the gibbet was erected, and the figure of the
earl of Rutland hung on it by the feet; and when this was done, the
above persons returned to their fort.

When the english garrison in Calais saw this spectacle in the morning,
they were much surprised thereat, and without delay cut the figure down,
and carried it into the town. After that time, they were more inclined
than ever to do mischief to the count Waleran and his subjects.



                               CHAP. XI.

    CONCERNING THE SENDING OF SIR JAMES DE BOURBON, COUNT DE LA
        MARCHE, AND HIS TWO BROTHERS, BY ORDERS FROM THE KING OF
        FRANCE, TO THE ASSISTANCE OF THE WELSH,—AND OTHER
        MATTERS.


In this year, sir James de Bourbon[40], count de la Marche, accompanied
by his two brothers, Louis[41] and Jean[42], with twelve hundred knights
and esquires, were sent, by orders from the king of France, to the port
of Brest in Brittany,—thence to embark for Wales, to the succour of the
Welsh against the English. They found there a fleet of transports ready
provided with all necessaries, on board of which they embarked,
intending to land at Dartmouth, but the wind proved contrary. Having
noticed seven sail of merchantmen coming out of this harbour, fully
laden, making sail for Plymouth, they chaced them so successfully that
their sailors abandoned their ships, and, taking to their boats, made
their escape as well as they could. The count de la Marche took
possession of the vessels and all they contained, and then entered
Plymouth harbour, which they destroyed with fire and sword.

Thence he sailed to a small island, called Sallemue[43]; and having
treated it in the same manner as Plymouth, he created some new
knights,—among whom were his two brothers, Louis count de Vendôme, and
Jean de Bourbon his youngest brother, and many of their companions. When
the count de la Marche had tarried there for three days, suspecting that
the English would collect a superior force to offer him battle, he set
sail for France; but shortly after a tempest arose that lasted for three
days, in which twelve of his ships and all on board perished. With much
difficulty, the count reached the port of St Malo with the remainder,
and thence went to Paris to wait on the king of France.

This same year, duke Philip of Burgundy made grand feasts for the
solemnization of the marriage of his second son Anthony, count of
Rethel, who was afterwards duke of Brabant, with the only daughter of
Waleran count of St Pol,—which daughter he had by the countess Maud, his
first wife, sister to king Richard of England. These feasts were very
magnificent, and well attended by many princes and princesses, with a
noble chivalry, and they were all supported at the sole expense of the
duke of Burgundy.



                             [A. D. 1403.]

                               CHAP. XII.

    THE ADMIRAL OF BRITTANY, WITH OTHER LORDS, FIGHTS THE
        ENGLISH AT SEA.—GILBERT DE FRETUN MAKES WAR AGAINST KING
        HENRY.


In the beginning of this year, the admiral of Brittany, the lord de
Penhors, the lord du Chastel[44], the lord du Boys, with many other
knights and esquires of Brittany, to the amount of twelve hundred men at
arms, assembled at Morlens[45], and embarked on board thirty vessels at
a port called Chastel-Pol[46], to engage the English, who had a large
fleet at sea on the look-out for merchantmen like pirates. On the
following Wednesday, as the English were cruising before a port called
St Matthieu[47], the Bretons came up with them, and chaced them until
sun-rise the ensuing morning, when they engaged in battle. It lasted for
three hours; but the Bretons at last gained the victory, and took two
thousand prisoners, with forty vessels with sails, and a carrack. The
greater part of the prisoners were thrown overboard and drowned, but
some escaped by promising punctual payment of their ransom.

About this same time, an esquire, named Gilbert de Fretun, a native of
the country of Guines, sent his challenge to the king of England, to
avoid paying him his homage; and in consequence, this Gilbert collected
many men at arms, and made such exertions that he provided himself with
two vessels well equipped, and carried on a destructive war against the
king as long as the truces between the kings of France and England were
broken, from which event great evils ensued.



                              CHAP. XIII.

    THE UNIVERSITY OF PARIS QUARRELS WITH SIR CHARLES DE SAVOISY
        AND WITH THE PROVOST OF PARIS.


At this period, when the university of Paris was making its annual
processions, much dissention arose between some of its members, as they
were near to St Catherine du Val des Escoliers, and the grooms of sir
Charles de Savoisy, chamberlain[48] to the king of France, who were
leading their horses to drink in the river Seine. The cause of the
quarrel was owing to some of the grooms riding their horses against the
procession, and wounding some of the scholars,—who, displeased at such
conduct, attacked them with stones, and knocked some of the riders off
their horses.

The grooms, on this, returned to the hôtel de Savoisy, but soon came
back armed with bows and arrows, and accompanied by others of their
fellow-servants, when they renewed the attack against the scholars,
wounding many with their arrows and staves even when in the church. This
caused a great riot. In the end, however, the great number of scholars
overpowered them, and drove them back, after several of them had been
soundly beaten and badly wounded.

When the procession was concluded, the members of the university waited
on the king, to make complaints of the insult offered them, and
demanded, by the mouth of their rector, that instant reparation should
be made them for the offence which had been committed, such as the case
required,—declaring, at the same time, that if it were not done, they
would all quit the town of Paris, and fix their residence in some other
place, where they might be in safety.

The king made answer, that such punishment should be inflicted on the
offenders as that they should be satisfied therewith. In short, after
many conferences, in which the members of the university urged their
complaints to the king, as well as to the princes of the blood who
composed his council, it was ordered by the king, to appease them, that
the lord Charles de Savoisy, in reparation for the offence committed by
his servants, should be banished from the king’s household, and from
those of the princes of the blood, and should be deprived of all his
offices. His hôtel was demolished, and razed to the ground; and he was
besides condemned to found two chapelries of one hundred livres each,
which were to be in the gift of the university.

After this sentence had been executed, sir Charles de Savoisy quitted
France, and lived for some time greatly dispirited in foreign countries,
where, however, he conducted himself so temperately and honourably[49],
that at length principally, through the queen of France and some great
lords, he made his peace with the university, and, with their
approbation, returned again to the king’s household.

Not long after this event, sir William de Tigouville[50], provost of
Paris, caused two clerks of the university to be executed: the one named
Legier de Montthilier, a Norman, and the other Olivier Bourgeois, a
Breton, accused of having committed divers felonies. For this reason,
notwithstanding they were clerks, they were led to execution, and,
although they loudly claimed their privileges, as of the clergy, in
hopes of being rescued, they were hung on the gibbet. The university,
however, caused the provost to be deprived of his office, and to be
sentenced to erect a large and high cross of free stone, near the gibbet
on the road leading to Paris, on which the figures of the two clerks
were carved. They caused him also to have their bodies taken down from
the gibbet, and placed in a cart, covered with black cloth; and thus
accompanied by him and his sergeants, with others bearing lighted
torches of wax, were they carried to the church of St Mathurin, and
there delivered by the provost to the rector of the university, who had
them honourably interred in the cloisters of this church; and an epitaph
was placed over them, to their perpetual remembrance.



                               CHAP. XIV.

    THE SENESCHAL OF HAINAULT PERFORMS A DEED OF ARMS WITH THREE
        OTHERS, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE KING OF ARRAGON.—THE
        ADMIRAL OF BRITTANY UNDERTAKES AN EXPEDITION AGAINST
        ENGLAND.


In this same year, an enterprise of arms was undertaken by the gallant
seneschal of Hainault, in the presence of the king of Arragon[51].

The combatants were to be four against four, and their arms battle-axes,
swords and daggers: the combat was to be for life or death, subject,
however, to the will of the judge of the field.

The companions of the seneschal were, sir James de Montenay, a knight of
Normandy, sir Tanneguy du Chastel, from the duchy of Brittany, and a
notable esquire called Jean Carmen[52]. Their adversaries were from the
kingdom of Arragon,—and their chief was named Tollemache de Sainte
Coulonne, of the king of Arragon’s household, and much beloved by him:
the second, sir Pierre de Monstarde[53]: the third, Proton de Sainte
Coulonne; and the fourth, Bernard de Buef.

When the appointed day approached, the king had the lists magnificently
prepared near to his palace in the town of Valencia. The king came to
the seat allotted for him, attended by the duke de Caudie[54], and the
counts de Sardonne[55] and d’Aviemie[56], and a numerous train of his
nobility. All round the lists scaffolds were erected, on which were
seated the nobles of the country, the ladies and damsels, as well as the
principal citizens of both sexes. Forty men at arms, richly dressed,
were ordered by the king to keep the lists clear; and between their
barriers was the constable of Arragon, with a large company of men at
arms, brilliantly equipped, according to the custom of the country.

Within the field of combat were two small pavilions for the champions,
who were much adorned with the emblazonry of their arms, to repose in,
and shelter themselves from the heat or the sun. On the arrival of the
king, he made known to the seneschal, by one of his knights, that he and
his companions should advance first into the field, since it had been so
ordered, as the Arragonians were the appellants. The seneschal and his
companions, on receiving this summons, instantly armed themselves, and
mounted their coursers, which were all alike ornamented with crimson
silk trappings that swept the ground, over which were besprinkled many
escutcheons of their arms. Thus nobly equipped, they left their
lodgings, and advanced toward the barriers of the lists. The before
named esquire marched first, followed by sir Tanneguy and sir James de
Montenay; and last of all, the seneschal, conducted by the seneschal du
Chut; when, having entered the lists, they made their reverences on
horseback to king Martin of Arragon, who paid them great honour.

They then retired to their tents, and waited an hour and a half for
their opponents, who arrived, like the others, in a body on horseback.
Their horses’ trappings were of white silk, ornamented with escutcheons
of their arms. When they had made their reverences to the king, they
retired also to their tents, which were pitched on the right, where they
all remained for full five hours thus armed. The cause of this delay was
owing to the king and his council wishing to accommodate the matter and
prevent the combat. To effectuate this, many messages were sent from the
king to the seneschal, proposing that he should not proceed farther; but
he prudently made answer, that this enterprise had been undertaken at
the request of Tollemache, and that he and his companions had come from
a far country, and at great trouble and expense, to gratify his wish,
which he and his companions were determined upon doing.

At length, after much discussion on each side, it was concluded that the
combat should take place. The usual proclamations were then made in the
king’s name; and the king at arms of Arragon cried out loudly and
clearly, that the champions must do their duty. Both parties instantly
issued forth of their tents, holding their battle-axes in their hands,
and marched proudly towards each other.

The Arragonians had settled among themselves that two of them should
fall on the seneschal, in the hope of striking him down: both parties
were on foot, and they expected he would be at one of the ends of the
lists above the others, but he was in the middle part. When they
approached, the seneschal stepped forward three or four paces before his
companions, and attacked Tollemache, who had that day been made a knight
by the king’s hand, and gave him so severe a blow with his battle-axe on
the side of his helmet as made him reel and turn half round. The others
made a gallant fight with their opponents; but sir James de Montenay,
throwing down his battle-axe, seized sir James[57] de Monstarde with one
of his hands under his legs, and, raising him up with his dagger in the
other, was prepared to stab him; but, as the affair on all sides seemed
to be carried on in earnest, the king put an end to the combat.

According to appearances, the Arragonians would have had the worst of it
had the combat been carried to extremities; for the seneschal and those
with him were all four very powerful in bodily strength, well
experienced in all warlike exercises, and equal to the accomplishment of
any enterprise in arms that might be demanded from them.

When the champions were retired to their tents, the king descended from
his seat into the list, and requested of the seneschal and Tollemache,
in a kind manner, that the remaining deeds of arms might be referred to
him and his council, and he would so act that they should all be
satisfied.

The seneschal, then falling on one knee, humbly entreated the king that
he would consent that the challenge should be completed according to the
request of Tollemache. The king replied, by again requiring that the
completion of the combat should be referred to his judgment; which being
granted, he took the seneschal by the hand, and placed him above
himself, and Tollemache on the other side. He thus led them out of the
lists, when each returned to his hôtel and disarmed. The king sent his
principal knights to seek the seneschal and his companions, whom, for
three days, he entertained at his palace, and paid them as much honour
as if they had been his own brothers. When he had reconciled them with
their opponents, he made them fresh presents; and they departed thence
on their return to France, and the seneschal to Hainault.

About this time the admiral of Brittany, the lord du Chastel, and many
other knights and esquires of Brittany and Normandy, to the amount of
twelve hundred or more, embarked on board several vessels at St Malo,
and put to sea, intending to land at Dartmouth. Notwithstanding the
admiral and some others were adverse to going ashore there, the lords du
Chastel and some others made their landing good, thinking they would be
followed by the rest, which was not the case. They attacked the English,
who were assembled in a large body; but, though the combat lasted some
time, the Bretons and Normans were defeated, and the lord du Chastel
slain,—with him two brothers, sir John Martiel, a norman knight, and
many more. About one hundred prisoners were made,—among whom was the
lord de Bacqueville, who afterward ransomed himself by dint of money.
The admiral and those that had remained with him, or were wounded,
returned to their country, afflicted and disconsolate at their loss[58].



                               CHAP. XV.

    THE MARSHAL OF FRANCE AND THE MASTER OF THE CROSS-BOWS, BY
        ORDERS FROM THE KING OF FRANCE, GO TO ENGLAND, TO THE
        ASSISTANCE OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.


Nearly at this time, the marshal of France and the master of the
cross-bows[59], by orders from the king of France and at his expense,
collected twelve hundred fighting men. They marched to Brest in
Brittany, to embark them, for the assistance of the Welsh against the
English, on board of six score vessels with sails which were lying
there. As the wind was contrary, they there remained fifteen days; but
when it became favourable, they steered for the port of
Haverfordwest,—which place they took, slaying all the inhabitants but
such as had fled. They wasted the country round, and then advanced to
the castle of Haverford, wherein was the earl of Arundel, with many
other men at arms and soldiers.

Having burnt the town and suburbs under the castle, they marched away,
destroying the whole country with fire and sword. They came to a town
called Tenby, situated eighteen miles off, where they found the prince
of Wales[60], with ten thousand combatants, waiting for them, and thence
marched together to Carmarthen, twelve miles from Tenby.

Thence they marched into the country of Linorquie[61], went to the Round
Table[62], which is a noble abbey, and then took the road to Worcester,
where they burnt the suburbs and adjoining country. Three leagues beyond
Worcester, they met the king of England, who was marching a large army
against them.

Each party drew up in order of battle on two eminences, having a valley
between them, and each waiting for the attack of its opponent. This
contest, who should commence the battle, lasted for eight days; and they
were regularly every morning drawn up in battle-array, and remained in
this state until evening,—during which time, there were many skirmishes
between the two parties, when upwards of two hundred of either side were
slain, and more wounded.

On the side of France, three knights were slain, namely, sir Patroullars
de Tries, brother to the marshal of France[63], the lord de Martelonne,
and the lord de la Valle. The French and Welsh were also much oppressed
by famine and other inconveniencies,—for with great difficulty could
they gain any provision, as the English had strongly guarded all the
passes.

At length, on the eighth day that these two armies had been looking at
each other, the king of England, seeing the enemy were not afraid of
him, retreated in the evening to Worcester, but was pursued by some
French and Welsh, who seized on eighteen carts laden with provision and
other baggage; upon which the French and Welsh then marched back to
Wales. While these things were passing, the french fleet was at sea,
having on board some men at arms to defend it, and made for a port which
had been pointed out to them, where they were found by their countrymen
on their retreat from England.

The marshal de Tries and the master of the cross-bows, having embarked
with their men on board this fleet, put to sea, and made sail for the
coast of France, and arrived at St Pol de Leon without any accident.

However, when they were disembarked, and had visited their men, they
found they had lost upwards of sixty men, of whom the three knights
before mentioned were the principal. They thence departed, each man to
his home, excepting the two commanders, who went to wait on the king and
the princes of the blood at Paris, by whom they were received with much
joy.



                               CHAP. XVI.

    A POWERFUL INFIDEL, CALLED TAMERLANE, INVADES THE KINGDOM OF
        THE KING BAJAZET, WHO MARCHES AGAINST AND FIGHTS WITH
        HIM.


In this year, a great and powerful prince of the region of Tartary,
called Tamerlane, invaded Turkey, belonging to king Bajazet, with two
hundred thousand combatants and twenty-six elephants. Bajazet was very
powerful, and had been one of the principal chiefs who had conquered and
made prisoner the count de Nevers in Hungary, as is fully described in
the Chronicles of master John Froissart.

When Bajazet heard that Tamerlane had thus invaded his territory, and
was wasting it with fire and sword, he issued a special summons
throughout his country, so that within fifteen days he had assembled an
army of three hundred thousand fighting men, but had only ten elephants.
These elephants of each party had small castles on their backs, in which
were many men at arms, who grievously annoyed the enemy. Bajazet marched
this force against Tamerlane, and found him encamped on a high mountain
to the westward, called Appady, having already destroyed or burnt very
many good towns, and the greater part of the country.

When the two chiefs were in sight of each other, they drew up their
armies in battle-array[64]. The combat soon began, and lasted full six
hours; but at last Bajazet and his army were defeated, and he himself
made prisoner. Forty thousand Turks were slain, and ten thousand of
their enemies. After this success, Tamerlane sent larger detachments of
his army to the principal towns in Turkey,—all of which, or the greater
part, surrendered to him,—so that Tamerlane, in one campaign, conquered
nearly the whole of Turkey.



                              CHAP. XVII.

    CHARLES KING OF NAVARRE NEGOTIATES WITH THE KING OF FRANCE,
        AND OBTAINS THE DUCHY OF NEMOURS.—DUKE PHILIP OF
        BURGUNDY MAKES A JOURNEY TO BAR-LE-DUC AND TO BRUSSELS.


At this same season, Charles[65] king of Navarre came to Paris to wait
on the king. He negotiated so successfully with the king and his privy
council that he obtained a gift of the castle of Nemours, with some of
its dependant castlewicks, which territory was made a duchy. He
instantly did homage for it, and at the same time surrendered to the
king the castle of Cherbourg, the county of Evreux[66], and all other
lordships he possessed within the kingdom of France, renouncing all
claim or profit in them to the king and to his successors, on
consideration, that with this duchy of Nemours the king of France
engaged to pay him two hundred thousand gold crowns of the coin of the
king our lord.

When this was done, duke Philip of Burgundy left Paris to go to
Bar-le-Duc, to attend the funeral of his sister the duchess of Bar[67],
who had died there. After this ceremony, he went to his town of Arras,
where the duchess was, and there celebrated the feast of Easter. He then
went to Brussels in Brabant, to the duchess’s, grandmother[68] to his
wife, who had sent for him, to resign into his hands the government of
the country; but he was there seized with an alarming illness, and
caused himself to be carried to Halle, as will be more fully shewn
hereafter.



                             [A. D. 1404.]

                              CHAP. XVIII.

    THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY DIES IN THE TOWN OF HALLE, IN
        HAINAULT.—HIS BODY IS CARRIED TO THE CARTHUSIAN CONVENT
        AT DIJON, IN BURGUNDY.


At the beginning of this year, the good duke of Burgundy, Philip, son to
king John, and brother to Charles the rich, caused himself to be carried
in a litter from the town of Brussels, in Brabant, to Halle, in
Hainault. That the horses which carried him might travel more safely,
and he be less shaken, labourers advanced before the litter, with spades
and pick-axes to repair and smooth the roads.

When at Halle, he fixed his lodgings near to the church of our Lady, at
an hôtel bearing the sign of the Stag; and, finding his disorder
increase, he sent for his three sons, namely, John count de Nevers,
Anthony and Philip. On their arrival, he entreated and commanded them to
be loyal and obedient, during their lives, to king Charles of France and
to his successors, and made them promise obedience on their love to him.
This engagement the three princes readily granted to their lord and
father, who then assigned to each such lordships and estates as they
were to hold after his decease, and specified the manner in which he
intended they should enjoy them. All these, and various other
arrangements, were wisely ordered by the duke in a manner becoming such
a prince, who had a good memory in his last moments. When he had
finished these matters, he died in this hôtel. His body was then opened,
and his bowels interred in the church of our Lady at Halle; but his body
being well embalmed, was placed in a leaden coffin, and carried to the
towns of Douay and Arras, magnificently attended, and in a manner
suitable to his rank.

At Arras the corpse was placed in his chapel, where a solemn service was
performed. The duchess Margaret[69] there renounced her claim to his
moveables, from fear of the debts being too great, by placing her girdle
with her purse and keys on the coffin, as is the usual custom in such
cases,—and demanded that this act should be put into writing by a public
notary there present.

The body was afterward conveyed to Burgundy, and interred in the church
of the Carthusians near Dijon, which church he had founded and
ornamented at his own expense. His heart was carried to the church of
Saint Denis, and placed near to his royal ancestors, from whom he was
descended.

The duke, in addition to the three before mentioned sons, had three
daughters, namely, the archduchess of Austria[70], the countess of
Holland[71], wife to William count of Hainault, and the duchess of
Savoy[72].

There were great lamentations at his death, not only by his children but
generally by the greater part of the lords of France and of his own
countries; for he had prudently and ably governed the affairs of France,
in conjunction with his elder brother the duke of Berry, by whom he was
much regretted.

After his decease, John count of Nevers, his eldest son, took possession
of the county and duchy of Burgundy: his second son, Anthony, was
declared heir to the duchy of Brabant, after the death of his great aunt
the duchess, who immediately resigned to him the duchy of Limbourg[73].
Philip, his third son, inherited the county of Nevers and barony of
Draxi, but not to enjoy them during the life of his mother. The three
brothers began to govern their territories with a high hand, and held
many councils together, and with their most confidential advisers, on
the manner in which they should conduct themselves towards the king
their sovereign lord.



                               CHAP. XIX.

    WALERAN COUNT DE ST POL LANDS A LARGE FORCE ON THE ISLE OF
        WIGHT, TO MAKE WAR AGAINST ENGLAND, BUT RETURNS WITHOUT
        HAVING PERFORMED ANY GREAT DEEDS.


In this year, Waleran count de St Pol assembled at Abbeville, in
Ponthieu, about sixteen hundred fighting men,—among whom were numbers of
the nobility, who had made great provision of salted meats, biscuit,
wines, brandy, butter, flour, and other things necessary on board of
ships. From Abbeville the count led them to the port of Harfleur, where
they found vessels of all descriptions to receive them.

When they had remained there some few days to arrange their matters, and
to recommend themselves to the protection of St Nicholas, they embarked
on board these vessels, and sailed for the Isle of Wight, which lies
opposite to the harbour of Southampton. They landed on the island,
making a bold countenance to face their enemies, of whom indeed they had
seen but little on their landing,—for all, or at least the greater part
of the islanders, had retreated to the woods and fortresses.

Several new knights were created by the count, namely, Philippe de
Harcourt, Jean de Fosseux, the lord de Guiency and others, who went to
burn some miserable villages, and set fire to a few other places. During
this, a sensible priest of the island came to the count to treat for the
ransom and security of the island, for which he gave the count to
understand a very large sum of money would be paid to him and his
captains. He too readily listened to this proposal; for it was a
deception on the part of the priest to delay their operations, and amuse
them with words, until the English should arrive to fight with them.

Count Waleran was at length informed of this plan, and, in consequence,
re-embarked with his men on board the vessels; and they returned to the
place whence they had come, without doing any thing more. Many of the
nobles were much displeased at this conduct, because they had expended
large sums in laying in their purveyances. The countries through which
his men at arms returned were greatly harrassed by them,—and this caused
much murmuring against the count, but no redress could be obtained.



                               CHAP. XX.

    LOUIS DUKE OF ORLEANS IS SENT BY THE KING TO THE POPE AT
        MARSEILLES.—THE DUKE OF BOURBON IS ORDERED INTO
        LANGUEDOC, AND THE CONSTABLE INTO ACQUITAINE.


The king of France, with the advice of his great council, sent Louis
duke of Orleans, accompanied by about six hundred knights, to pope
Gregory, to remonstrate with him on the necessity of establishing an
union in the church. He travelled through Champagne and Burgundy to
Lyon, and thence to Marseilles, where the pope and his court then were.
He received the duke most honourably and magnificently, and, after he
had heard the object of his mission, gave him his apostolical letters,
containing certain conditions, preparatory to the attempt of an union.

The duke, on receiving them, took leave of the pope, and returned to
Paris to the king, who had near his person the dukes of Berry, Burgundy,
Brittany and Bourbon, and many other great lords, secular and
ecclesiastical. In their presence, he delivered the apostolical letters
which contained, among other things, an offer from the pope to procure
the union of the whole church; and, should it be necessary, to obtain so
desirable an object, his holiness was willing to resign the papacy, and
to act in whatever way touching this matter his council should judge
expedient, and conformable to reason and justice.

The king, his council, the lords present and the university, were well
satisfied, when they had heard the contents of the pope’s letter.

About this time, John[74] count of Clermont, son and heir to the duke of
Bourbon, was ordered by the king and council into Languedoc, and thence
to carry on a war against the English in Gascony, who were very active
in harrassing the frontiers. He appointed Saint Flour in Auvergne as the
place of rendezvous for his troops, which consisted of five hundred men
at arms, and the same number of cross-bows and archers. The next in
command to the count de Clermont was the viscount de Châteaubon, son to
the count de Foix[75]. They carried on a severe warfare, and put several
forts under the king’s obedience,—such as the castles of St Pierre, St
Mary, Châteauneuf, and many more. After he had left these forts well
garrisoned, he concluded the campaign, and returned to the king at
Paris, by whom he was most graciously received.

Shortly afterward, the lord Charles d’Albreth[76], constable of France,
was sent into the duchy of Acquitaine, accompanied by Harpedane, a
knight of great renown in arms. They laid siege to the castle of
Carlefin[77], the garrison of which had done much mischief to the king’s
subjects, and laid the whole adjoining country under contribution. The
siege lasted for six weeks, when a treaty was concluded with the
garrison by the constable, which allowed them to march out in safety
with all their wealth; and he agreed also to pay them a certain sum of
money, which was raised on the inhabitants of the country adjoining the
castle. When the constable had garrisoned the castle with his own men,
he returned to king Charles at Paris.



                               CHAP. XXI.

    THE DEATH OF DUKE ALBERT, COUNT OF HAINAULT,—AND OF MARGARET
        DUCHESS OF BURGUNDY, DAUGHTER TO LOUIS EARL OF FLANDERS.


This year died duke Albert, count of Hainault, Holland and Zealand. He
was son to Louis of Bavaria, formerly emperor of Germany, and left issue
two sons and a daughter,—namely, William, the eldest, and John, surnamed
‘sans pitié,’ who was promoted to the bishoprick of Liege,
notwithstanding he was not then consecrated. The daughter was married to
John duke of Burgundy[78]. Duke Albert was interred in the collegiate
church of the Hague, in Holland.

In this year also died Margaret duchess of Burgundy, widow of the late
duke Philip, at her dower-house in Arras. Her illness was very short,
and she departed this life on the Friday before mid-lent Sunday. Her
three sons, John duke of Burgundy, Anthony duke of Limbourg, and her
youngest son Philip, were in the utmost grief at this event in the town
of Lille, where she was buried in the collegiate church of St Peter,
near to her father the earl Louis of Flanders.

After her decease, John duke of Burgundy succeeded to the counties of
Flanders and Artois, and Philip to the county of Nevers, according to
the arrangements before mentioned. Shortly after, through the management
of the duke of Burgundy, the two following marriages took place: Louis
duke of Acquitaine, dauphin, and son to the king of France, with
Margaret, eldest daughter to the duke of Burgundy,—and Philip count de
Charolois, only son and heir to the above duke, with Michelle daughter
to the king of France. These matches had been talked of during the life
of the late duke Philip, and were very agreeable to the king, the queen,
and the princes of the blood, excepting the duke of Orleans, whom they
displeased. From that time, and indeed somewhat before, there were
appearances of jealousy and dislike between these two princes of Orleans
and Burgundy; and whatever seeming affection they may have shown to each
other, there was no sincere love. These jealousies were fomented in
great measure by the various reports which were carried to each, by
their different dependants.

The above-mentioned marriages, however, were agreed on, and proper acts
drawn up, signed and mutually interchanged, for the security of them,
between all the parties.

A very heavy tax was about this time imposed on all the inhabitants
throughout France, by the king and his council at Paris; but the duke of
Burgundy would not consent that it should be levied,—which conduct
gained him universal popularity throughout the kingdom.



                             [A. D. 1405.]

                              CHAP. XXII.

    JOHN DUKE OF BURGUNDY, AFTER THE DEATH OF THE DUCHESS
        MARGARET, IS RECEIVED BY THE PRINCIPAL TOWNS IN FLANDERS
        AS THEIR LORD.


At the commencement of this year, the duke of Burgundy, having paid his
duty to the king of France at Paris, set out for Flanders, attended by
his brothers and a large company of the nobles of that country. He was
most honourably and kindly received every where by his subjects, who
made him handsome presents, more especially those of Ghent, Bruges,
Ypres, and other great towns.

They took the usual oaths of fidelity to him, promising to serve him
faithfully, as they were bound to do. He then forbade all his subjects
to pay the tax last imposed at Paris by the king and his council, as has
been mentioned. This conduct greatly increased the hatred the duke of
Orleans bore him,—for at that time the public affairs were governed
according to his pleasure, insomuch that a stop was put to the marriages
before mentioned, between the children of the king and the duke of
Burgundy; and the duke of Orleans was desirous to find out some other
match for his nephew, the duke of Acquitaine, which highly displeased
the duke of Burgundy when it came to his knowledge.

The duke instantly sent his ambassadors to the king, the queen, and the
great council,—but they had no very agreeable answer to bring back to
their master, by reason of which they returned as speedily as they could
to Flanders. Having heard their account, he consulted his most
confidential ministers as to the manner in which he should act. They
advised him to set out immediately for Paris,—for that, being on the
spot, he could pursue his business with the king and council with more
urgency, and greater expectation of success, than by ambassadors. He
assented to this advice, and made his preparations to go thither as
speedily as he could.

At this period, pope Benedict XIII.[79], who resided and kept his court
in the county of Provence, imposed a tax of a tenth on his clergy. This
tax was intended to hasten the union of our holy mother church, and was
to be paid at two terms, namely, at Easter, and on the feast of St Remy.



                              CHAP. XXIII.

    DUKE WILLIAM COUNT OF HAINAULT PRESIDES AT A COMBAT FOR LIFE
        OR DEATH, IN HIS TOWN OF QUESNOY, IN WHICH ONE OF THE
        CHAMPIONS IS SLAIN.


A mortal combat was this year fought in the town of Quesnoy, in the
presence of duke William count of Hainault, judge of the field, between
a gentleman named Bournecte, of the county of Hainault, appellant, and
another gentleman called Sohier Bunaige, of the county of Flanders. The
cause of quarrel was, that Bournecte declared and maintained that Sohier
had killed and murdered one of his near relations; and in this case,
duke William had ordered lists to be prepared at his expense, as was
usual in such like instances.

The duke had in vain attempted several times to reconcile them,—but
finding them unwilling to consent, he ordered them to appear before him
at a certain time and place, to decide their difference by combat. On
the appointed day, the appellant entered the lists, accompanied by some
of his nearest kindred, and was soon followed by the defendant.

Proclamation was then made in the duke’s name, by a herald, that no one
should dare to give any hindrance to the combatants, under pain of
death,—and then the champions were told to do their duty. After this
last proclamation, the appellant first left his pavilion, and advanced
to meet the defendant. When they had thrown each their lances without
effect, they drew their swords, and fought for a short time; but
Bournecte soon overcame his adversary, and made him publicly avow the
truth of the charge he had made against him, and for which he called him
to the combat. The vanquished man was speedily condemned by the duke to
be beheaded;—which sentence was instantly executed, and the conqueror
led in triumph to his hôtel. He was greatly honoured and respected by
all the nobility,—and it was reported that the duke of Orleans had been
present at this combat in disguise.



                              CHAP. XXIV.

    THE COUNT DE SAINT POL MARCHES AN ARMY BEFORE THE CASTLE OF
        MERCQ, WHERE THE ENGLISH FROM CALAIS MEET AND DISCOMFIT
        HIM.


In the month of May of this year, Waleran de Luxembourg, count de Ligny
and de St Pol, governor for the king of France in Picardy, assembled in
that country and in the Boulonois from four to five hundred men at arms,
five hundred genoese cross-bows, and about one thousand Flemings on
foot, from the country about Gravelines. He marched them from St Omer to
Tournehen, and thence advanced to lay siege to a castle called Mercq, in
the possession of the English, who from that place, and other garrisons,
had greatly harrassed the Boulonois and the adjacent countries.

The count caused many engines to be erected against this castle, which
much annoyed the garrison, who defended themselves courageously. The
count saw he could not gain the place by storm without great difficulty
and loss of men, and in consequence lodged his army in the houses of the
town that were surrounded by old ditches, which he had repaired to
secure himself against his enemies, as well from Calais as from other
garrisons. On the morrow, he made an attack on the lower court of the
castle, which was carried by storm; and the assailants gained great
numbers of horses, cows, sheep and mares. At this attack, sir Robert de
Birengueville, knight, was wounded so that he died shortly after.

On this same day, about one hundred men at arms sallied out from Calais,
and having viewed the French at their ease, returned to their town, and
instantly sent a herald to the count de St Pol to say, that on the
morrow they would dine with him, if he would have the goodness to wait
for them. The herald returned with the answer, that if they would come,
they should be received, and find the dinner ready.

On the morrow, very early, two hundred men at arms, two hundred archers,
and about three hundred men on foot, lightly armed, marched out of
Calais. They carried with them ten or twelve carts laden with wines and
provision. The whole were under the command of an english knight named
Richards, lieutenant governor of Calais under the earl of Somerset,
brother to Henry of Lancaster, at that time king of England[80].

They advanced in good array until they were near the enemy, who, though
advised of their coming by their spies, made no preparations, nor did
they draw themselves up in battle without their quarters to meet them,
as they should have done. They remained so long in their ditches that
the English kept up a terrible discharge of arrows, by which numbers
were killed and wounded, without the French being enabled to make any
effectual resistance.

The Flemings, and the greater part of the infantry, shortly began to
give way, and take to flight from fear of the arrows,—and the men at
arms soon followed their example. The genoese cross-bows also, having,
in the preceding assault on the outer court of the castle, expended all
their bolts, had not provided themselves with a fresh supply, so that at
this time of need they made a very poor defence.

By these means, the English, without any great loss on their side, soon
discomfited the French, and remained victors oh the field. The count de
St Pol, with others of his companions, made off without any regard to
his honour, and, passing through St Omer, returned to Therouenne.

In general, all those of his party who remained were killed, or made
prisoners. The slain were about sixty in number,—and among them were the
principal of the french commanders, namely, the lord de Querecqs, sir
Morlet de Savences, sir Courbet de Rempeupret, sir Martel de Vaulhuon,
sir Guy d’Juergny, and the lord de Fayel.

Among the prisoners were the lord de Hangestez[81], governor of
Boulogne, the lord de Dampierre[82], seneschal of Ponthieu, the lord de
Rambures[83], George la Personne, the lord de Givenchy, with several
other noble knights and esquires, to the amount of sixty or eighty.

When the battle was concluded, and the English had taken possession of
all the carts and engines of war which the enemy had brought thither,
and had stript the dead, they returned to their town of Calais with
their prisoners, rejoicing in their victory.

On the contrary, count Waleran and those who had escaped with him were
overwhelmed with despair, and not without cause. On the third day after
this defeat, the English marched out of Calais with the numerous cannons
and other artillery they had taken from the French before Mercq, for the
town of Ardres. They amounted to about five hundred combatants; and as
they had marched all night, thinking to surprise it, and that it was
weakly garrisoned, they began their attack at the break of day, by
placing ladders against its walls, and setting fire to different parts
of it.

But through the vigilance and courage of two notable and valiant knights
who were in the town, sir Mansart de Boz and the lord de Lignes, the
English were repulsed. At this attack and retreat, there were from forty
to fifty English slain, whom their companions carried to a large house
without the walls, and set fire to it, that the enemy might be ignorant
of their loss.

Confounded and dejected with their repulse and loss, they returned to
Calais, where, some of those who had been at the affair of Mercq having
died of the wounds which they had received from the genoese cross-bows,
they wanted to put the genoese prisoners to death, saying that their
bolts and arrows had been poisoned.

The count de St Pol, who had retreated to Therouenne, sent an especial
summons throughout Picardy for another assembly of men at arms, in the
hopes of retrieving his honour. The lord de Dampierre, sir John de
Craon, lord de Dompinart[84], sir Morlet de Querecqs, the lord de
Fosseux, the lord de Chin, the lord de Houcourt, and many other nobles,
came to him numerously attended. The count held many councils with them;
and it was determined to march to the frontiers of the enemy’s country,
and to harrass them by every possible means.

As they were preparing to put their intentions into execution, the king
of France sent orders to the count and the other nobles not to proceed
further in this business, for that he had provided other commanders. In
truth, he sent the marquis du Pont, son to the duke de Bar, the count de
Dammartin[85], and Harpedanne, a knight of high renown, with four
hundred men at arms and five hundred others, to quarter themselves at
Boulogne, and other places on the frontiers of the Boulonois. The count
de St Pol was not well pleased at this; but he was forced to suffer,
whether willingly or not, the talk of the public, as there was no other
remedy than to let the public talk on.

John duke of Burgundy was in his county of Flanders when he heard of the
great defeat of the count de St Pol before Mercq. He was much vexed
thereat, and sent sir John de la Vallée, knight, in haste to Gravelines,
and other places on that frontier, with men at arms and cross-bows, to
prevent the English from doing any injury to them. The guard of this
country was also intrusted by the king of France to sir Lyonnet
d’Arummes, who, night and day, most diligently attended to it.

King Henry of England, having learnt from his commander at Calais the
brilliant success he had obtained over the French before Mercq, ordered
an army of four or five thousand combatants to be instantly raised. He
embarked this force on board the vessels prepared for it, and ordered
them to cruise off Dunkirk and Neuport, and to disembark the army at
Sluys.

About three thousand were landed on the strand, and marched along it
about the distance of a league to attack the castle of Sluys; but the
garrison, in conjunction with the inhabitants of the country, who were
greatly frightened, defended it very valiantly, and, what with cannons
and other offensive weapons, repulsed their enemies, killing about
sixty,—among whom was the earl of Pembroke, one of their leaders[86].

News was brought to the English, that the duke of Burgundy was marching
a great force against them; on which they returned to their ships, and
then to England.

The duke of Burgundy, however, was not long before he ordered a number
of men at arms to be collected under the command of the lord de
Croy[87], and others his captains, to defend his country against the
invasions of the English. They assembled on the frontiers of Flanders to
oppose the English, should they again return to his coasts.

The duke also sent an embassy to the duke of Orleans and the great
council at Paris, to demand men and money to enable him to lay siege to
Calais, for he was very desirous of it; but he received a negative to
the request made by his ambassadors. The duke of Burgundy, on receiving
this answer, made preparations for waiting personally on the king at
Paris, the better to expedite this business; and for this purpose he
went to Arras, where he held many consultations with different great
lords, his vassals and dependants.



                               CHAP. XXV.

    JOHN DUKE OF BURGUNDY GOES TO PARIS, AND CAUSES THE DAUPHIN
        AND QUEEN TO RETURN THITHER, WHOM THE DUKE OF ORLEANS
        WAS CARRYING OFF,—WITH OTHER MATTERS.


When the duke of Burgundy had concluded his business at Arras, he set
out on the vigil of the Assumption of the Virgin towards Paris,
accompanied by a body of men, to the amount of eight hundred combatants,
secretly armed. He stopped some days at the town of Louvres, in the Isle
of France, where letters were brought him, to say, that the king had
recovered his health from his late illness, and that the queen and the
duke of Orleans were gone to Melun, and thence to Chartres, carrying
with them the duke of Acquitaine, dauphin of Vienne.

Having considered the contents of these letters, he went to bed and
slept, but ordered his trumpet to sound very early, and left the town
with all his men, and hastened to Paris to prevent the dauphin from
leaving it. On his arrival, he was told by the Parisians, that he was
already departed after his mother, which was true; upon which the duke,
without dismounting or making any delay, trotted through Paris with his
troops as fast as he could in pursuit of the dauphin. He overtook him
between Ville-Juive and Corbeil, where the queen and the duke of Orleans
were waiting dinner for him. With the dauphin were his uncle by the
mother’s side, Louis of Bavaria, the marquis du Pont, son to the duke of
Bar, the count Dammartin, Montagu, grand master of the king’s
household[88], with many other lords to attend upon him. There was in
the litter with him his sister de Priaux, wife to sir James de Bourbon.

When the duke of Burgundy approached the dauphin, he made him the most
respectful obeisances, and supplicated him to return and live in Paris,
where, he said, he would be better than in any other part of France;
adding, that he was desirous of conversing with him on many points which
touched him personally.

After this conversation, Louis of Bavaria, seeing the dauphin was
inclined to comply with the request of the duke, said, ‘My lord duke of
Burgundy, suffer my nephew the dauphin to follow the queen his mother
and the duke of Orleans, as he has had the consent of his father for so
doing.’

Notwithstanding this speech, and many others that were urged on the same
subject, which for the sake of brevity I omit, the duke of Burgundy
caused the litter of the dauphin to be turned about, and brought him and
all his attendants back to Paris, excepting the marquis du Pont, the
count Dammartin, and many more of the household of the duke of Orleans.

These last galloped off toward Corbeil, where they related to the queen
and the duke of Orleans how the duke of Burgundy had made the dauphin
and his attendants return against their will to Paris. This intelligence
alarmed and astonished them,—for they knew not what the duke of
Burgundy’s intentions were,—insomuch that the duke of Orleans left his
dinner, which was quite ready, and went in haste to Melun, followed by
the queen and their households.

The duke of Burgundy, as I have said, conducted the dauphin to Paris;
and the king of Navarre, the dukes of Berry and of Bourbon, the count de
la Marche, with many more great lords, and an immense crowd of the
citizens of Paris, came out to meet him, and escorted him most
honourably into the town. The duke of Burgundy, however, and his two
brothers, as well as the lords above mentioned, kept very close all this
time by the sides of the litter.

They rode on in this state, at a foot’s pace, until they came to the
castle of the Louvre, when the dauphin was helped out of his litter by
his uncle, Louis of Bavaria, and there lodged. All the lords then
retired to their houses except the duke of Burgundy, who likewise lodged
there. He shortly after sent many messengers to his different countries,
to order men at arms instantly to attend him at Paris. The duke kept his
state at the Louvre, in the apartments of St Louis, and in those
underneath, which formed part of them. The dauphin and his household
were lodged in the chambers above them.

On the morrow, the rector and the soundest[89] part of the university
came to pay their respects to the duke of Burgundy, and to thank him
publicly, with all humility, for his great love and affection towards
the king, his family and the whole realm, of which they formed a part,
being well assured of his good intentions, which were meant for its
reformation and amendment, beseeching him to persevere in these his
endeavours, notwithstanding any obstacles he might meet with.

On the Sunday following, the duke and all his people removed from the
Louvre; and he established himself at his hôtel of Artois,—and in the
adjacent streets he had strong fortifications made of palisades and
barriers, to prevent any annoyance from his adversaries. He also
prevailed on the king and the great council, that the chains in the
Louvre, which had formerly been taken away, should be restored, and
affixed to the streets as they before had been. The duke of Burgundy
gained much popularity with all the Parisians for having obtained this
for them.

The castle of the Louvre remained under the guard of sir Regnault
d’Angiennes, to whom it had formerly been intrusted by the king. The
bastille of St Anthony was committed to the care of Montagu, grand
master of the king’s household, on his making oath that he would not
suffer any man to enter it, but when the king’s council was there
assembled. The dauphin, by orders of the king and council, was placed
under the care of the duke of Berry.

The duke of Burgundy and his two brothers now presented a petition to
the king and council, of which the contents were as follows:

‘John duke of Burgundy, Anthony duke of Limbourg, and Philip count of
Nevers, brothers, your very humble subjects, relations, and obedient
servants, fully sensible, by reason and justice, that every knight of
your realm is bound, after God, to love, serve and obey you. We feel
ourselves not only obliged to do you no harm, but held to notify to you
personally whatever may be proposed against your honour or advantage. In
like manner are bound all those your relations who hold great lordships
under your favour. We are, as we shall make appear, very sensible of
this obligation,—for we are subjects of your realm, as well as
cousins-german to your blood.

‘And I John, by the grace of God and your favour, am duke of Burgundy,
peer of the kingdom of France and dean of the peerage, count of Flanders
and Artois,—and I Anthony, count of Rethel[90],—and I Philip, count of
Nevers and baron de Doussy,—and withal by the consent of you, our very
redoubted lord, and with that of our much redoubted lady the queen, and
of all the royal family, has the marriage been confirmed between the
duke of Acquitaine, dauphin of Vienne, your son, and the daughter of me,
duke of Burgundy,—and also that between the lady de Charolois, your
daughter, and Philip, count de Charolois, my son. We have also been
commanded by our late redoubted lord and father, at the time of his
decease, who then made us promise that we would inviolably preserve our
fidelity toward you and your kingdom, which we shall wish ever to do
during our lives.

‘In order, therefore, to prevent any of our actions from being
suspected, which may bring down on us the divine indignation, it seems
necessary that we declare what is frequently done contrary to your
honour and advantage, and principally, according to our judgment, in
four points.

‘The first respects your person. Before you recovered from this last
illness, by which you are not the only one who suffered, but all those
who had a real affection for you, and whom you loved, suffered great
affliction on your behalf, seeing matters were transacted in your
council against your honour, though coloured over with a pretence of
being advantageous. Many unreasonable requests were made, to which,
though you had given a denial, some of the members of your council have
taken on themselves to grant them, so that the requests, however
unreasonable, have been complied with.

‘You have, besides, neither robes, jewels, nor plate, becoming your
royal state; and when any small quantity is bought for use, it is very
shortly after pawned. Your servants have not audiences from you, nor
have they any profit. They are afraid of mentioning to you such things
as we now state, and which so much affect your honour, although very
desirous of so doing.

‘The second point regards the administration of justice throughout this
realm, which was wont to excel all other kingdoms in the ministring
strict justice, which is the foundation-stone of your government.

‘In former times, your officers of justice were chosen, after mature
deliberation, from among the wisest of your subjects, who defended your
rights, and did equal justice to the lowest as well as to those of the
highest rank; but now your rights are greatly infringed upon, and daily
diminished, by which the people are very much oppressed.

‘The third point respects your domains, which are exceedingly ill
managed, insomuch that many houses, castles and edifices, are falling to
ruin. In like manner are your woods destroyed, your mills out of repair,
your rivers and ponds robbed, and in general all the revenue of your
domains are become, from their great diminution, of scarcely any value.

‘The fourth point concerns churchmen, the nobility and the people; and,
first, it is a well known fact, that the clergy are grievously vexed,
and suffer great losses, as well from the judges of the realm as from
men at arms, and several other descriptions of persons, who take by
force their provisions, ransack their houses, nay, make them ransom
themselves from further injuries, by which means they have scarcely a
sufficiency left to perform the divine service.

‘The nobility are frequently summoned, under pretext of aiding you in
your wars, and never receive one penny for their attendance or service;
and to purchase armour, horses, and other necessaries for war, they are
often forced to sell their properties.

‘In respect to your people, it is very certain that they must speedily
be ruined, from the vexations they suffer under your bailiffs, provosts,
and especially from the farmers of your domains, and under your
soldiers. These grievances have been so long winked at that it may be
feared that the indignation of God will be roused against you, unless
you shall provide remedies for them.

‘It is notorious that your enemies, during the reigns of Philip and
John, both kings of France, your noble predecessors, did infinite
mischief to your realm; and that they long detained, against the will of
king Richard, your ally and son-in-law, as well as against your own, his
wife and your daughter. They drowned several nobles and others, who had
an affection for her, broke the truces, and have wasted and set fire to
several places in your kingdom, in Picardy, Flanders, Normandy, Brittany
and Acquitaine, where they have done irreparable damages.

‘We do not, noble sir, advise that you should neglect the war you have
undertaken against your enemies,—for that would reflect disgrace on your
honour and great council, and put an end to the dissensions that now
remain among them, and the war they have on their hands against the
Welsh and Scots. Should peace be made between them, greater evils might
befal your kingdom than before.

‘It seems to us, as a certain truth, that you will find it very
difficult to raise the necessary supplies for this war from your
domains, or other sources. Two heavy taxes have been lately imposed,
under pretence of supporting the wars; notwithstanding which, not one
penny of their receipt has been expended on them, which may cause many
evils,—for there are great discontents among the clergy, the nobility
and the people; and should they rise together (which I hope will never
happen), more real dangers may be the consequence than have ever yet
befallen the realm. Every person in your kingdom who is loyally attached
to you must feel much grief in seeing the money of your realm thus
wasted.

‘We have thought ourselves, noble lord, thus bounden by our obligations
to you, to lay the complaints of the nation before you; and, that we may
avoid incurring your royal indignation, or that of our lady the queen,
or of the princes of the blood, or others of your faithful subjects, we
do not wish to make personal charges, nor to seek for any part in your
government, but most humbly supplicate you to apply a remedy to the
vexations we have stated, and request that you call into your presence
those who may assure you of the truths we have told you, that you may
seek wholesome counsel, and briefly put an end to such peculations.

‘To aid so good a work, we offer you our persons, our fortunes and our
friends; and as in truth we cannot patiently see or suffer such things
to be done against your honour, and that of your royal majesty, it is
our intention never to cease supplicating your majesty until some
efficient steps be taken to remedy them.’

Such was the petition of John duke of Burgundy and his brothers.

Another day, when the king was in a tolerably good state of health, the
three before mentioned petitioners, accompanied by their uncle the duke
of Berry, and many princes and knights of France, with master Regnault
de Corbie, first president of the parliament, and a number of officers
of state, went to the hôtel de St Pol, where they found the king, who
had quitted his apartment and was in the garden. After having reverently
saluted him, the three brothers did their homages for the lordships they
held under him, namely, duke John for his duchy of Burgundy, and his
counties of Flanders and Artois,—Anthony duke of Limbourg, for his
county of Rethel,—and Philip the younger, for his county of Nevers.

There were also a very great number of noblemen, knights and esquires,
who did their homages to the king for the estates they held from him in
different parts of the kingdom. When the three brothers had requested
certificates from the king of the duties they had performed, they took
leave of him, and departed for their hôtels.

These same days there arrived at Paris, and in the adjacent villages,
full six thousand fighting men, in obedience to the summons of the duke
of Burgundy and his brothers, under the command of Jean sans pitié[91],
bishop of Liege, and the count de Cleves. This force was collected to
oppose the duke of Orleans, should he attempt any insult against them;
for they were well informed of his not being well pleased that they had
forced his nephew, the dauphin, to return to Paris, nor with the
petition they had made to the king. What raised his indignation the
more, and especially against the duke of Burgundy, was his knowledge
that the charges in this petition attached more to him than to any other
of the princes of the realm.

The duke of Orleans, not knowing what turn these matters might take, nor
what measures might be pursued against his person, ordered men at arms
from all quarters to his assistance. In the number, sir John Harpedanne
came with his men from the frontiers of the Boulonois. From other parts
came the duke of Lorraine and the count d’Alençon[92] with a large body
of men, who were quartered at Melun, and in that neighbourhood, to the
amount of fourteen hundred armed with helmets, besides a great multitude
of other sorts.

The whole country round Paris, the Isle of France and Brie, were sorely
oppressed by the men at arms of both parties.

The partisans of the duke of Orleans bore on their pennons the motto,
‘Je l’envie;’ and the duke sent messengers to the queen and to king
Louis[93], who was preparing to set out for his kingdom of Naples with a
powerful body of men at arms, to come to him at Melun. The king, leaving
his own business, went thither, and had a conference with the queen and
the duke,—after which he returned to Paris, with the intention of
negotiating between the two parties.

He held many consultations with the dukes of Berry and Bourbon, and the
king’s council, to attempt a reconciliation between the dukes of Orleans
and Burgundy. Whilst this was passing, the duke of Orleans wrote letters
to many of the principal towns in the kingdom, complaining that many
defamatory and injurious reports against his person and honour had been
very industriously spread through Paris, which ought not to obtain any
credit until he should make answer to them. In like manner, he wrote to
the university of Paris, sending ambassadors to require that the matters
in dispute between him and the duke of Burgundy should be argued before
them, and that they should decide which of the two was to blame.

The university, on the receipt of this letter, sent some of their
principal members as ambassadors to the duke at Melun, who stated three
points which they were ordered to lay before him. In the first place,
they thanked him for the honour he had done them by sending them his
ambassadors: secondly, they declared that they should be very happy to
witness the commencement of a reformation in the kingdom; and thirdly,
that they should greatly rejoice to see him and the duke of Burgundy
reconciled.

The duke of Orleans, having listened to them, instantly made answer,
that they had not acted wisely in supporting and advising the duke of
Burgundy in his measures, which had been principally directed against
himself, as they could not have been ignorant that he was son and
brother to a king; that the regency of the kingdom had been given to him
as the most proper person, and was in fact his right, considering the
state of the king’s health, and the youth of his nephew the duke of
Acquitaine. He added, secondly, that those members of the university who
were strangers, and from different countries, ought not to interfere in
the government or reformation of the kingdom, but should leave it to him
and those of the blood royal, and the king’s ministers.

In reply to their third point, he said, that there was no need of
pacification between him and the duke of Burgundy, because there was not
any warfare, nor had any challenges passed between them.

When the ambassadors had heard these answers, they withdrew, very much
confused, and returned to Paris. On the ensuing Saturday, while the duke
of Burgundy was in his hôtel d’Artois, he was informed, and it was a
fact, that the queen and the duke of Orleans, with all their force, had
marched from Melun, and were on their road to Paris.

The duke, on hearing this, mounted his horse, and rode to the hôtel
d’Angiers, where he found the king of Sicily, the dukes of Berry and of
Bourbon, with other lords of the king’s council, who, when they knew of
the arrival of the said duke of Orleans, were all greatly astonished;
for this was in direct contradiction to their intent, and to the treaty
which they were meditating between the parties.

The duke of Burgundy had a great number of men at arms, as well within
Paris as without, who bore for motto on the pennons of their lances, in
Flemish, _Hie Houd!_ that is to say, ‘I have possession!’ in opposition
to the device of the Orleans-party, _Je l’envie!_[94] The greater part
of the duke of Burgundy’s forces drew up in battle-array on the summit
of Montfaulcon, to wait the arrival of their adversaries.

In the mean while, the populace of Paris rose; and multitudes armed
themselves to oppose the entrance of the duke of Orleans, suspecting his
intentions were to give the town up to pillage and murder. They pulled
down many sheds, that no obstructions might be found in the streets to
the full use of the lance, and that shelter might not be afforded
against the stones thrown down from the roofs of the houses.

Many scholars armed themselves for the defence of the bridges; and true
it was, that the Parisians were far more favourable to the party of
Burgundy than to that of Orleans, and were willing, should there be
occasion, to assist that party to the utmost of their power.

The duke of Burgundy was fully prepared to resist and combat the duke of
Orleans, had he advanced as far as Paris. But the chancellor and
presidents of the parliament, with other prudent men, observing the
great ferment in Paris, made many visits to the hôtel d’Angiers, with a
view to reconcile these princes, and avert the great mischiefs that
might otherwise ensue. They likewise sent messengers to the duke of
Orleans, to inform him of the state of Paris, and how very unpopular he
was there. The duke and the queen, on hearing this intelligence, after a
short consultation with their most confidential advisers, separated: the
queen went to the Bois de Vincennes, and the duke returned with his army
to Corbeil.

On the morrow, he came to Beauté; and his army was quartered near the
bridge of Charenton, and in the adjacent country. During this time, the
before-named princes, with many great lords and members of the council
assembled, and met for several days, to consider of a reconciliation
between the two parties. After some time, they at length made known to
each their determination, which was, that within two days the dukes of
Orleans and Burgundy should submit the whole of their disputes to the
decision of the kings of Sicily and Navarre, and the dukes of Berry and
Bourbon; and for the accomplishment of the decision, they were each to
bind themselves by their corporal oath, and afterward to dismiss their
forces. The duke of Orleans came to lodge at his hôtel at St Anthony,
near the bastille.

A few days afterward, the princes before named managed the affair so
well that the two dukes made up their quarrel, and apparently showed in
public that they were good friends; but He who knows the inward secrets
of the heart saw what little dependance was to be placed on such outward
appearances.

The duke of Lorraine and the count d’Alençon, after this, returned home
with their men, without entering Paris; and not long afterward, the duke
of Burgundy departed, with his brothers and men at arms, for Artois, and
thence to his county of Flanders, where he had a conference with his
brother-in-law duke William, the bishop of Liege, the count Waleran de
St Pol, the count de Namur[95], and several others. When this was ended,
he returned to his town of Arras.



                             [A. D. 1406.]

                              CHAP. XXVI.

    DUKE JOHN OF BURGUNDY OBTAINS FROM THE KING OF FRANCE THE
        GOVERNMENT OF PICARDY.—AN EMBASSY FROM ENGLAND TO
        FRANCE.—AN ACCOUNT OF CLUGNET DE BRABANT, KNIGHT.


At the commencement of this year, the duke of Burgundy, by a grant from
the king, the dukes of Orleans and Berry, and the whole council,
obtained the government of Picardy. In consequence, sir William de
Vienne, lord of St George, was ordered by him to the frontiers of the
Boulonois, with six hundred men armed with helmets, and a large body of
genoese cross-bows. They were encamped on these frontiers, whence they
made a sharp war against the English: nevertheless, the country was not
so well guarded against the inroads of the latter but that it was in
several parts laid waste by them.

About this period, the ambassadors returned from England to the king and
his council at Paris, namely, the earl of Pembroke and the bishop of St
David’s, with some others[96], who came to request that a truce might be
established between the two crowns, so that commerce might have a free
course in both countries.

They also demanded, that the king of France should grant his eldest
daughter, Isabella, formerly married to king Richard, in marriage to the
eldest son of the king of England, who, in consideration of this match,
would, instantly after its consummation, lay down his crown, and invest
his son with the government of the kingdom.

These requests, having been made to the royal council, were referred a
few days for consideration; but at length, they having been fully
discussed, and the frauds of the English duly considered, not one of
them was granted. The duke of Orleans contended, that this eldest
princess of France should be given in marriage to his eldest son
Charles, which afterward took place.

The english ambassadors returned home, much dissatisfied at their ill
success, and the war was shortly after carried on with greater
bitterness between the two nations.

Even sir Clugnet de Brabant[97], knight of the household to the duke of
Orleans, went to Harfleur with six hundred men at arms at the king’s
expense. He had lately obtained the office of great admiral of France,
with the approbation of sir Regnault de Trie, who had resigned it, in
consideration of a very large sum of money which he had received,
through the intrigues of the duke of Orleans. But as he was on the point
of entering Harfleur, where there were twelve gallies ready for sea, on
board of which he meant to embark to make war on the English, and take
possession of his new office, he was ordered, in the king’s name, not to
proceed further, but to return to Paris.

Shortly after, by means of the duke of Orleans, he married the dowager
countess of Blois[98], widow of count Guy de Blois, sister to the count
de Namur, who was much irritated thereat;—and because an illegitimate
brother of his had consented to the conclusion of this marriage, he had
him seized by his men, on the first favourable opportunity, and
beheaded, thus making his blood pay for the acts of his will.

The duke of Berry was at this time governor of Paris, and prevailed on
the king and council to permit the Parisians to wear arms, to defend
themselves, should there be occasion; and the greater part of the armour
that had been kept at the palace and Louvre, since the time of the
mallet insurrection, were given back to them.



                              CHAP. XXVII.

    THE WAR IS RENEWED BETWEEN THE DUKES OF BAR AND
        LORRAINE.—MARRIAGES CONCLUDED AT COMPIÈGNE.—AN ALLIANCE
        BETWEEN THE DUKES OF ORLEANS AND BURGUNDY.


This year, the quarrels were renewed between the dukes of Bar and
Lorraine, because the duke of Lorraine had straitly besieged, with a
considerable force, a castle belonging to the duke of Bar, which was
partly in France, and had on this account been surrendered by the
marquis du Pont, son to the duke of Bar, to the king of France. However,
in spite of this, the duke of Lorraine took it; and as this conduct was
highly displeasing to the king, a large army was assembled in that part
of France.

Sir Clugnet de Brabant, admiral of France, was ordered to march this
army into Lorraine against the duke; but negotiations were entered into,
so that the army was dismissed, and all those preparations ended in
nothing.

About this time, the queen of France came to the town of Compiègne,
accompanied by some of her children, namely, John duke of Touraine, and
Isabella, who had been queen of England. The dukes of Orleans and
Burgundy came thither also, as did the duchess of Holland, wife to duke
William count of Hainault, with her daughter Jaqueline de Baviere, count
Charles d’Angoulême, eldest son to the duke of Orleans, and many other
great lords, by whom the above were attended in great state. The legate
of the holy see at Rome, with many bishops, doctors and churchmen, were
likewise there,—when marriages were concluded between the duke of
Touraine, second son to the king of France, and Jaqueline de Baviere,
and between Charles d’Orleans and Isabella, late queen of England.

Isabella was cousin-german to Charles, who had been her godfather at her
baptism; but notwithstanding this difficulty, the marriage was
accomplished by means of an apostolical dispensation; and very great
feasts took place at Compiègne in consequence, consisting of dinners,
dancings, justs and other jollities.

A few days after, when every thing had been concluded, the duchess of
Holland and her brother-in-law John of Bavaria, with the consent of the
queen, the dukes before named, and the royal council, took with them the
new-married couple, John de Touraine and his bride, to Quesnoy le Conte
in Hainault, where duke William then resided, who received them most
kindly, and entertained them magnificently.

When these matters had been finished, and the dukes of Orleans and
Burgundy had mutually promised love and friendship during their lives,
the duke of Orleans departed, and carried his daughter-in-law, Isabella,
with his son to Château-Thierry, which the king, at the solicitation of
the duke, had given him.

The queen and council returned to Paris to the king, who had lately
recovered from his illness; and the duke of Burgundy, with his
attendants, went to Artois and Flanders. He ordered about six hundred
combatants from Burgundy to guard the frontiers of the Boulonois, and
make war on the English. They greatly destroyed the country round
Bethune, because the count of Namur would not suffer his subjects to pay
the duke of Burgundy a tax which the king had lately allowed him to
raise on the whole of Artois, for the payment of these soldiers who were
to guard the frontiers.

The vassals of the count de Namur, however, seeing that their refusal of
payment was attended with greater loss, consented to pay the whole
without delay,—and then the men at arms quitted their country.

About this time, the earl of Northumberland and lord Percy came to
Paris, and waited on the king, the princes of the blood, and the lords
of the council, stating their melancholy situation, and entreating to
have assistance and men at arms to make war on Henry king of England. In
making this request, they engaged to give up some of their friends as
hostages, that they would serve him loyally and faithfully against the
king of England; but in a short time they received a negative to their
demand, and returned home without any aid from the king of France.

Another war broke out between the dukes of Bar and Lorraine; and sir
Clugnet de Brabant, admiral of France, was sent thither with a large
army. He marched it through Champagne to Lorraine, and besieged Neuf
Chastel, belonging to the duke, which instantly surrendered to the king,
by the advice of Ferry de Lorraine[99], count de Vaudemont, brother to
the duke.

The duke of Lorraine immediately sent ambassadors to Paris to make
excuses for what had passed, who negotiated so successfully that the
king was satisfied, and remanded his army, which, in going and coming
back, committed great waste in all the countries through which they
passed.

The duke of Burgundy, accompanied by his two brothers and many great
lords, went to the town of Arras, where his duchess and his daughters
were waiting for him. Shortly after, the count de Cleves came thither,
and was married to Marie, daughter to the duke; and, on the morrow, the
count de Penthievre[100] espoused another, called Isabella. The town of
Arras was very gay with the numerous feasts caused by these weddings.

Some days after, the duke of Limbourg and the two new-married couples,
having enjoyed much festivity, took their leaves of the duke and duchess
of Burgundy, and returned to their own homes.

At this period, the duke William, count of Hainault, nobly accompanied
by his Hainaulters, went to Paris, where he was most handsomely received
by the king, queen, and all the princes then there.

During his stay at Paris, it was declared in the parliament, and
proclaimed throughout the town, that no one, whether ecclesiastic or
layman, should in future pay any tax or subsidy to pope Benedict, nor to
such as favoured his pretensions. This was likewise forbidden through
the kingdom of France, which caused much perplexity to many well meaning
persons in that realm from this schism in the church.



                             CHAP. XXVIII.

    THE DUKE OF ORLEANS, BY THE KING’S ORDERS, MARCHES A
        POWERFUL ARMY TO ACQUITAINE, AND BESIEGES BLAYE AND LE
        BOURG.


This year, the duke of Orleans, by orders from the king, quitted Paris
to march a large army of men at arms and archers, amounting to six
thousand combatants, into Acquitaine, to wage war against the English.
He took with him the lord Charles d’Albreth, constable of France, the
marquis du Pont, son to the duke of Bar, the count de Clermont[101],
Montagu, great master of the household, with many other noble lords, who
marched in a body to lay siege to Blaye, which they sorely oppressed
with their engines.

In a short time, the town began to negotiate, and offered to surrender
to the duke, in case the town of Le Bourg, to which he intended to lay
siege, should set them the example. They also promised to deliver
provision to the duke’s army, during the siege of Le Bourg, at a
reasonable price. The duke accepted of these terms, and besieged Le
Bourg, which was strongly garrisoned by a numerous body of english and
gascon men at arms. Many engines were pointed against the walls and
gates by the French, which did them considerable damage; but,
notwithstanding, the besieged defended themselves vigorously.

While this siege was going forward, sir Clugnet de Brabant, admiral of
France, put to sea with twenty-two ships full of men at arms, to oppose
the english fleet, which was also at sea in great force. The two fleets
met, and had a sharp skirmish, in which many were killed and wounded on
both sides; but nothing more was done, and they separated. The French,
however, lost one of their ships, in which were Lionnet de Braquemont,
Agieux de St Martin, and several more, attached to the duke of Orleans,
who were carried by the English to Bordeaux.

The other Frenchmen, namely, sir Clugnet de Brabant, sir William de
Villanes, governor of la Rochelle, sir Charles de Savoisy, and the rest,
returned to Le Bourg, and related to the duke what had passed at sea.

The duke of Orleans, having remained in vain about three months at this
siege, considered the strength of the place and the great mortality in
his army, and held a council with his officers, when it was resolved
that he should march his men at arms back to Paris.

The people of France, and some of the nobility, murmured much against
him for this retreat, because there had been a very heavy tax levied for
the support of this army.



                              CHAP. XXIX.

    THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY PREVAILS ON THE KING OF FRANCE AND HIS
        COUNCIL, THAT HE MAY HAVE PERMISSION TO ASSEMBLE MEN AT
        ARMS TO BESIEGE CALAIS.


During the absence of the duke of Orleans in Acquitaine, the duke of
Burgundy obtained liberty from the king of France and his council to
raise a sufficient force in his own countries to lay siege to Calais.
The king also promised that he should be assisted with men at arms, and
as much money as could be raised in the realm.

On this being concluded, he returned to his county of Flanders, and
issued his summons for all men at arms to meet him at St Omer: at the
same time, he prepared many engines of war,—and particularly, he caused
to be constructed in the forest of Beaulot two large bastilles, ready to
be conveyed to Calais. He likewise caused many engines to be made for
casting stones at different places.

On the other hand, the king had assembled a numerous body of combatants,
who, like the others, traversed Picardy in their road to Saint Omer,
doing much mischief to the country. Among the number were from four to
five hundred Genoese, the greater part of whom were cross-bows on foot.

When all were arrived at St Omer, they were found to amount to six
thousand armed with helmets, three thousand archers, and fifteen hundred
cross-bows, all picked men, without including those on foot from the
countries of Flanders, Cassel, and other parts, who were very numerous.
There were very many carts to convey bombards, cannons, artillery,
provisions, and other necessaries for the war. But notwithstanding all
these preparations had been made through the application of the duke of
Burgundy, and with the full approbation of the king and his council, as
has been said, and that the musters were about to be made for their
immediate departure, certain messengers came to the duke of Burgundy and
his captains, with letters from the noble king of France, to forbid them
to proceed further with this army.

The duke, on reading these orders, assembled a council of war, and
remonstrated with them on the commands he had received from the king,
saying it was shameful and disgraceful thus to disarm so noble an army
as he had assembled. The lords, however, considering that the king’s
orders muse be obeyed, concluded to break up the army, and to return
every man to his own country; for the king had also written to the count
de St Pol, to the master of the cross-bows[102], and to other great
lords, to forbid them, on any pretence, to proceed further in this
expedition, under pain of incurring his indignation. Thus was this
armament broken up on the night of Martinmas-day.

The duke of Burgundy, however, swore by a great oath, in the presence of
many of his people, that within the month of March ensuing, he would
return to St Omer with a powerful army, and thence march to make war
against the English in the Boulonois, and subject them to his obedience,
or die in the attempt.

The duke and his vassals left St Omer, and returned to their homes. This
retreat caused great discontent throughout Picardy, and the frontiers of
the Boulonois, against the king and his council, as well as against
those who had raised this army, and not without cause, for the
multitudes that had been collected had done infinite mischief to the
country.

Sir William de Vienne, lord of St George, and lieutenant-governor of
Picardy, resigned this office to the duke of Burgundy, who nominated in
his place the lord de Croy. The greater part of the king’s artillery was
deposited in the castle of St Remy, in the expectation that they would
be wanted in the ensuing season.

The duke of Burgundy, having left St Omer, passed through Hesdin, where
the duchess was, to Douay, where he received the intelligence that the
duchess of Brabant had been dead some little time. He was very indignant
at having been forced to disband the forces he intended to march to
Calais, and for that cause conceived a deep hatred against many of the
king of France’s ministers,—more particularly against the duke of
Orleans, for he had been told that the expedition had been countermanded
by his interference.

He held a numerous council at Douay on this subject, with many of the
nobles of his countries, when it was unanimously resolved, that he
should personally wait on the king, to entreat that the expedition
against Calais should be renewed the ensuing spring. He went, in
consequence, to Paris, nobly attended. He made strong remonstrances to
the king, the duke of Berry, his uncle, and others of the king’s
council, and heavy complaints for their having allowed him to raise so
large an army, at such a great expense, and then having disgraced and
dishonoured him, by ordering him to disband it, when on the point of
marching to Calais.

The king, however, and his ministers, gently appeased his wrath, by
informing him of many particulars which had made it proper that such
measures as he complained of should have been taken, both from necessity
and convenience. He was apparently satisfied with their reasons; and he
was given to understand, that within a short time the king would permit
him to accomplish his object of besieging Calais.



                               CHAP. XXX.

    THE PRELATES AND CLERGY OF FRANCE ARE SUMMONED TO ATTEND THE
        KING AT PARIS, ON THE SUBJECT OF AN UNION OF THE CHURCH.


At this period, all the archbishops, bishops, and the principal clergy
of France and Dauphiny, were summoned to Paris by order of the king, to
confer with his great council on the means of establishing an universal
union of the church. When all, or the greater part, were arrived, as the
health of the king was very indifferent, a grand procession was made,
and a solemn mass to the Holy Ghost was celebrated in the royal chapel
of the palace, by the archbishop of Rheims.

On the morrow, the conference was held at the palace, when the duke of
Acquitaine, dauphin of Vienne, represented the king. He was attended by
the dukes of Berry, Burgundy and Bourbon, and many of the nobles. A
learned Cordelier, doctor in theology in the university of Paris, opened
the business, and explained the reasons of this assembly. He eloquently
stated from facts the sufferings of the church, from the great
perversity and discord of two popes contending for the papacy, and that
it was absolutely necessary to provide a speedy remedy, otherwise the
church would be ruined.

On the day after the feast of St Eloy, the king, having recovered his
health, attended this conference, accompanied by the noble persons
before mentioned, and was seated on his royal throne. He promised to
execute whatever this assembly and the court of parliament should
resolve on; and shortly afterward, a proclamation was made throughout
the realm, that neither of the contending popes should dispose of any
benefices or dignities in the church which might become vacant; and
likewise that the sums of money usually paid into the apostolical
chamber should be discontinued to both the rival popes. It was also
proclaimed, that all benefices should in future be given by the
sovereign, or legal patrons, as had been formerly done, before the
reservations and constitutions made by pope Clement VI. of the name.



                              CHAP. XXXI.

    THE LIEGEOIS EJECT THEIR BISHOP, JOHN OF BAVARIA, FOR
        REFUSING TO BE CONSECRATED AS A CHURCHMAN, ACCORDING TO
        HIS PROMISE.


This same year, John of Bavaria, surnamed ‘sans pitié,’ bishop of Liege,
and brother german to duke William, count of Hainault, was ejected by
the Liegeois from his bishoprick, for refusing to take sacred orders,
according to what he had promised and sworn to them. They elected
another lord and bishop in his room, a young man of eighteen years old,
or thereabout, and canon of the church of Saint Lambert of Liege. They
also made the lord de Pieruels[103], father to the new bishop, their
principal maimbourg, and governor of the whole territory of Liege.

John of Bavaria had, some time before, promised to resign the bishoprick
to the son of Pieruels, as was known to Anthony duke of Brabant, Waleran
count de St Pol, and several other respectable persons, which promise he
now refused to keep. At the instigation, therefore, of the lord de
Pieruels, the Liegeois had rebelled against John of Bavaria[104], and
chosen a new lord.

Their late bishop was much angered at their conduct, and had his town of
Bouillon, and other castles, well stored with every sort of warlike
provision, that he might thence carry on a war against the country of
Liege.

He then went to his brother duke William, in Hainault, to obtain his
assistance and men at arms. In the mean time, the Liegeois assembled in
great force, and marched to the town of Bouillon, which, with the
castle, they took by storm, and put to death all they found therein.

John of Bavaria shortly after entered the country of Liege, near to
Thuin, with four hundred combatants, and burnt many towns and houses,
carrying away a very great booty to Hainault.

The Liegeois soon after entered Hainault with a considerable army, where
they destroyed the tower of Morialines, and burnt the town. They thence
marched to Brabançon, and other places belonging to such knights and
esquires as had invaded their country, which they plundered, and in many
places burnt, wasting the country with fire and sword.

The Hainaulters assembled to repulse them; but the enemy were in such
superior numbers that they returned back, without effecting any thing
worth relating. War now raged between them,—and each fortified their
towns as strongly as they could.

The Liegeois sent ambassadors to the pope, to lay before him the conduct
of John of Bavaria, and his refusal to take orders according to his
promise, requesting that he might be ejected by the apostolical
authority, and that the son of the lord de Pieruels, whom they had
elected, might be admitted in his room.

The pope could not accede to their request, because he had been
faithfully informed that the Liegeois, after mature deliberation, had
fixed on a day for John of Bavaria to take orders, and that this day was
not as yet passed.

The ambassadors, therefore, returned to Liege, without having done any
thing. Those who had sent them were very indignant at pope Gregory for
not complying with their demands, and resolved to send another embassy
to his rival pope Benedict. This pope received them most graciously,
granted all their demands, and gave them his bulls for the confirmation
of them. They returned home greatly rejoiced at the successful issue of
their negotiation.



                              CHAP. XXXII.

    ANTHONY DUKE OF LIMBOURG TAKES POSSESSION OF THAT DUCHY, AND
        AFTERWARD OF THE TOWN OF MAESTRICHT, TO THE GREAT
        DISPLEASURE OF THE LIEGEOIS.


Anthony duke of Limbourg, brother to John duke of Burgundy, after the
death of the duchess of Brabant, succeeded to that duchy, and to its
dependancies. All the Brabanters, clergy and nobles, did him homage,
promising him obedience as their lawful lord, except the town of
Maestricht. When he had taken possession of this duchy, he surrendered,
with the consent of the duke of Burgundy, the county of Rethel to his
younger brother, Philip count de Nevers, thus accomplishing the last
orders of his father and mother.

As the town of Maestricht was divided between the governments of Brabant
and Liege, one half belonging to each, the inhabitants said they were
bound only to do homage to one of them, and to him who first had
possession; and that, having formerly given their oaths to John of
Bavaria, they refused to pay homage to the duke of Brabant.

The duke was ill pleased with their refusal, and resolved, with the
advice of his council, to constrain them to it by force. He sought for
men at arms every where; and there came to him his brother, the count de
Nevers, the counts de St Pol and de Namur, the lords de St George and de
Croy, on the part of the duke of Burgundy,—with several others in
considerable number, sent to him by the king of France and the duke of
Berry.

When his forces were all assembled from different countries, he quitted
Brabant, attended by his nobles, and a large train of waggons carrying
the implements of war, taking the direct road to the town of Maestricht.
But on passing through, or near the territories of Liege, he found they
had collected a large army, which much impeded him in his march by
breaking down the bridges, and destroying the roads, in retaliation for
the affection the duke of Brabant had shewn to John of Bavaria their
adversary.

The Liegeois had assembled in the town of Maestricht full twenty
thousand armed men, with the new bishop at their head, being desirous
that he should be received by the duke as their legal bishop and lord.
This great assembly, however, separated without effusion of blood: for
the duke of Brabant had entered into secret negotiations with the
townsmen, who consented to receive him as their lord, and to swear to
him faith and loyalty.

When this was done, the duke returned and disbanded his forces. The
Liegeois, on hearing of it, instantly required those of Maestricht, that
since they had sworn obedience to the duke of Brabant, they would do the
same to their new bishop, who was their true lord. This demand was
refused; and they sent for answer, that having done homage to John of
Bavaria, and acknowledged him for their lord, they would not take
another oath.

The Liegeois were very indignant at this answer, as were the governor of
the town and bishop, and made preparations to wage war against them, and
besiege their town, as shall hereafter be more fully described.



                             CHAP. XXXIII.

    AMBASSADORS FROM POPE GREGORY ARRIVE AT PARIS, WITH BULLS
        FROM THE POPE TO THE KING AND UNIVERSITY OF PARIS.


Ambassadors arrived at Paris bringing bulls from pope Gregory[105] to
the king and the university, expressing that the pope was very ready and
willing to make any concessions the king and university should think
expedient for the union of the church, provided his rival Benedict would
agree to similar terms. The ambassadors and their bulls were received
with much joy,—and the contents of the latter were as follows:

‘Gregory, a bishop, and servant to the servants of God, sends health and
his apostolical benediction to his children of the university. We are
the more prepared to write to you, my beloved children, because of the
sorrowful concern which you have manifested on account of the schism in
the church, which, through the mercy of the all-powerful God, has much
affected you.

‘Innocent VII. our immediate predecessor, of enviable remembrance to
this age, was taken from us on a Saturday, the 6th of November. Our
venerable brethren the cardinals of the holy roman church, of whom I was
one, being by the grace of the Holy Spirit, summoned to a conclave, to
elect a roman pontiff,—after many things had been discussed, all eyes
were directed to me, a cardinal priest of the title of St Mark; and with
unanimous consent, they elected me bishop of Rome, which honour we
greatly feared, from a sense of weakness: however, we trusted in Him who
does marvellous works, that he would enable us to bear this burden,—and
we trusted not in ourself, but in the virtue of God, by whom we were
convinced the thing had been done.

‘This pastoral office has not fallen to us for our profit, but for the
glory of God and the public benefit,—to both of which we turn our
thoughts and courage, in order that this poisonous schism, in which the
Christian people have been so long bewildered may be destroyed. If, as
we hope, so great a grace may be shewn to us to bring this about, we
trust it may be shortly accomplished.

‘In order, therefore, to obviate, as much as in us lies, all obstruction
on our part to the much-desired union of the church, we offer to resign
our claim to the papacy, provided our adversary, or his successor,
whoever he be, shall engage solemnly to make a similar renunciation;
that is to say, that he renounce, fully and clearly, all claim to the
papacy, and that all those whom he may have created cardinals do unite
with those of our college, so that a canonical election of a roman
pontiff may ensue.

‘We offer, beside, any other reasonable concessions, so that this schism
may be put an end to; and that what we say may be depended on, we have
sworn and promised the above at the time of our election to the popedom,
in conjunction with our venerable brethren the cardinals of the same
church.

‘In case that either of us be re-chosen pope, we have engaged instantly
to send properly instructed commissioners to Constance, who shall both
privately and publicly labour to bring about this desired union of the
church.

‘Do you, therefore, my beloved children, have the goodness to exert all
your strength to aid us in the accomplishment of this business, that the
church may not longer labour under this disorder; and let affection aid
solicitude.—Given at St Peter’s, at Rome, the 11th day of December, in
the year 1406.’

When the ambassadors had fully remonstrated on the matter of their
coming, and made the same offers contained in the bull of the
renunciation of the popedom by Gregory, and had been well entertained at
Paris, having received promises of messengers being sent to pope
Benedict, they returned to their lord and master.

About the ensuing Candlemas, the king of France and the university of
Paris, in consequence of the deliberations of the prelates, clergy and
council, sent certain ambassadors to pope Benedict,—namely, the
patriarch of Alexandria, who was then at Paris, the bishops of Cambray
and Beauvais, the abbots of Saint Denis and of Mont St Michel, the lord
de Courrouille, master John Toussain, secretary to the king, and other
doctors of the university, with many very respectable persons. They took
the road to Marseilles, where Benedict, and some of the cardinals of his
party, then resided.

These ambassadors were charged to remonstrate with him, in an amicable
manner, on the offer which his rival had made to renounce the papacy, in
order to effectuate an union of the church. In case he should not be
willing to make a similar offer, they were to intimate to him, that if
he refused, the whole realm of France and Dauphiny, in conjunction with
many other countries of Christendom, would withdraw themselves from him,
and no longer obey his bulls or apostolical mandates. In like manner
would they act toward his adversary, were he to refuse compliance with
the offers made by his ambassadors to the king of France and the
university of Paris.

The ambassadors were graciously received by pope Benedict, on their
arrival at Marseilles; but when they opened the matter of their embassy,
and explained the subject at length, the pope replied in person, that in
a short time they should have his answer,—and in the mean while, he was
not forgetful that they had threatened to withdraw themselves from his
obedience.

To provide a remedy against the effects of this menace, and that no
cardinal might publish a constitution against such as might withdraw
themselves from his obedience, or even that of his successors, he sent
an envoy to the king and the university of Paris, to their great
astonishment.

The pope having given an answer to the ambassadors from France, very
different indeed from what they expected, they set out on their return
to Paris much displeased with him. On their arrival, they related all
that had passed. The patriarch, however, had remained at Marseilles,
with the hope of inclining pope Benedict to an union of the church.



                             [A. D. 1407.]

                              CHAP. XXXIV.

    THE DUKE OF ORLEANS RECEIVES THE DUCHY OF ACQUITAINE, AS A
        PRESENT, FROM THE KING OF FRANCE.—A TRUCE CONCLUDED
        BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE.


At the beginning of this year, the duke of Orleans, by means which he
had long practised, prevailed on his brother, the king of France, to
give him the duchy of Acquitaine, which he had long been wishing for.

Truces were at this time concluded between the kings of France and
England, for one year only, and were proclaimed at the accustomed
places. The Flemings were much rejoiced thereat, for they thought that
their commerce would now be more securely carried on.

Ambassadors from England arrived at Paris from king Henry, the principal
of whom was sir Thomas Erpingham, having with him an archdeacon, and
several noblemen. He was presented to the king by Tassin de Servillers,
and required in marriage one of the princesses, a nun at Poissy, for the
prince of Wales, eldest son to king Henry. But as they demanded too
great concessions with the princess, they returned without success. The
lord de Hangest, whom the king had lately for his merit made master of
the cross-bows, escorted them as far as Boulogne-sur-mer[106].



                              CHAP. XXXV.

    THE PRINCE OF WALES[107], ACCOMPANIED BY HIS TWO UNCLES,
        MARCHES A CONSIDERABLE FORCE TO WAGE WAR AGAINST THE
        SCOTS.


The prince of Wales, son to king Henry, assembled, about the feast of
All-saints, one thousand men at arms and six thousand archers, to make
an incursion into Scotland. His uncles, the dukes of York and Somerset,
and the lords Mortimer, Rôs, Cornwall, and many other nobles attended
him.

Their object was to retaliate on the Scots, who had lately broken the
truce, and done much mischief with fire and sword in the duchy of
Lancaster. They entered Scotland, and committed great carnage wherever
they passed; for the Scots were quite unprepared to receive them, nor
had they any intelligence of their coming until they were in the midst
of their country.

When news of this invasion was brought to the king of Scotland, he was
at his town of St Jangon[108], in the center of his realm. He assembled
in haste his nobles, and as large a force as could be collected on so
short notice, which he sent under the command of the earls of Douglas
and Buchan, with his constable, to meet the English and combat them,
should they think it advisable. When they were within six leagues of the
enemy, they were informed, that the English were far superior in
numbers, and they adopted other measures. They sent ambassadors to the
prince of Wales to treat of peace, and they managed so well that the
truce was renewed for one year.

The prince of Wales, having done great mischief to Scotland, returned to
England; and the Scots disbanded their army.



                              CHAP. XXXVI.

    THE DUKE OF ORLEANS, ONLY BROTHER TO CHARLES VI. THE
        WELL-BELOVED, KING OF FRANCE, IS INHUMANLY ASSASSINATED
        IN THE TOWN OF PARIS.


This year there happened the most melancholy event in the town of Paris
that had ever befallen the Christian kingdom of France by the death of a
single man. It occasioned the utmost grief to the king and the princes
of the blood, as well as to the kingdom in general, and was the cause of
most disastrous quarrels between them, which lasted a very long time,
insomuch that the kingdom was nearly ruined and overturned, as will more
plainly be shewn in the continuation of this history.

This event was nothing less than the murder of the duke of Orleans, only
brother to Charles the well-beloved, king of France.

The duke was, on a Wednesday, the feast-day of pope St Clement,
assassinated in Paris, about seven o’clock in the evening, on his return
from dinner. This murder was committed by about eighteen men, who had
lodged at an hôtel having for sign the image of our Lady, near the Porte
Barbette, and who, it was afterward discovered, had for several days
intended this assassination.

On the Wednesday before mentioned, they sent one named Scas de
Courteheuze, valet de chambre to the king, and one of their accomplices,
to the duke of Orleans, who had gone to visit the queen of France at an
hôtel which she had lately purchased from Montagu, grand master of the
king’s household, situated very near the Porte Barbette. She had lain in
there of a child, which had died shortly after its birth, and had not
then accomplished the days of her purification.

Scas, on his seeing the duke, said, by way of deceiving him, ‘My lord,
the king sends for you, and you must instantly hasten to him, for he has
business of great importance to you and him, which he must communicate
to you.’ The duke, on hearing this message, was eager to obey the king’s
orders, although the monarch knew nothing of the matter, and immediately
mounted his mule, attended by two esquires on one horse, and four or
five valets on foot, who followed behind bearing torches; but his other
attendants made no haste to follow him. He had made this visit in a
private manner, notwithstanding at this time he had within the city of
Paris six hundred knights and esquires of his retinue, and at his
expense.

On his arrival at the Porte Barbette, the eighteen men, all well and
secretly armed, were waiting for him, and were lying in ambush, under
shelter of a pent-house. The night was pretty dark; and as they sallied
out against him, one cried out, ‘Put him to death!’ and gave him such a
blow on the wrist with his battle-axe as severed it from his arm.

The duke, astonished at this attack, cried out, ‘I am the duke of
Orleans!’ when the assassins, continuing their blows, answered, ‘You are
the person we were looking for.’ So many rushed on him that he was
struck off his mule, and his skull was split that his brains were dashed
on the pavement. They turned him over and over, and massacred him that
he was very soon completely dead. A young esquire, a German by birth,
who had been his page, was murdered with him: seeing his master struck
to the ground, he threw himself on his body to protect him, but in vain,
and he suffered for his generous courage. The horse which carried the
two esquires that preceded the duke, seeing so many armed men advance,
began to snort, and when he had passed them set out on a gallop, so that
it was some time before he could be checked.

When the esquires had stopped their horse, they saw their lord’s mule
following them full gallop: having caught him, they fancied the duke
must have fallen, and were bringing it back by the bridle; but on their
arrival where their lord lay, they were menaced by the assassins, that
if they did not instantly depart, they should share his fate. Seeing
their lord had been thus basely murdered, they hastened to the hôtel of
the queen, crying out,—‘Murder!’

Those who had killed the duke, in their turn, bawled out, ‘Fire!’ and
they had arranged their plan, that while some were assassinating the
duke, others were to set fire to their lodgings. Some mounted on
horseback, and the rest on foot, made off as fast as they could,
throwing behind them broken glass and sharp points of iron to prevent
their being pursued.

Report said, that many of them went the back way to the hôtel d’Artois,
to their master the duke of Burgundy, who had commanded them to do this
deed, as he afterward publicly confessed, to inform him of the success
of their murder,—when instantly afterward they withdrew to places of
safety.

The chief of these assassins, and the conductor of the business, was one
called Rollet d’Auctonville[109], a Norman, whom the duke of Orleans
had, a little before, deprived of his office of commissioner of taxes,
which the king had given to him, at the request of the late duke of
Burgundy. From that time, the said Rollet had been considering how he
could revenge himself on the duke of Orleans. His other accomplices were
William Courteheuze and Scas Courteheuze, before mentioned, from the
county of Guines, John de la Motte and others, to the amount of
eighteen.

Within half an hour, the household of the duke of Orleans, hearing of
this horrid murder, made loud complaints, and, with great crowds of
nobles and others, hastened to the fatal spot, where they found him
lying dead in the street. His knights and esquires, and in general all
his dependants, made grievous lamentations, seeing him thus wounded and
disfigured.

With many groans, they raised the body, and carried it to the hôtel of
the lord de Rieux, marshal of France, which was hard by; and shortly
afterward, the body was covered with a white pall, and conveyed most
honourably to the church of the Guillemins[110], where it lay, as being
the nearest church to where the murder had been committed.

Soon afterward, the king of Sicily, and many other princes, knights and
esquires, having heard of this foul murder of the only brother of the
king of France, came with many tears to visit the body. It was put into
a leaden coffin, and the monks of the church, with all the late duke’s
household, watched it all night, saying prayers, and singing psalms over
it.

On the morrow, his servants found the hand which had been cut off, and
collected much of the brains that had been scattered over the
street,—all of which were inclosed in a leaden case and placed by the
coffin.

The whole of the princes who were in Paris, except the king and his
children, namely, the king of Sicily, the dukes of Berry, Burgundy and
Bourbon, the marquis du Pont, the counts de Nevers, de Clermont, de
Vendôme, de St Pol, de Dammartin, the constable of France and several
others, having assembled, with a large body of the clergy and nobles,
and a multitude of the citizens of Paris, went in a body to the church
of the Guillemins. Then the principal officers of the late duke’s
household took the body, and bore it out of the church with a great
number of lighted torches carried by the esquires of the defunct. On
each side of the body were, in due order, uttering groans and shedding
tears, the king of Sicily, the dukes of Berry, Burgundy and Bourbon,
each holding a corner of the pall.

After the body followed the other princes, the clergy and barons,
according to their rank, recommending his soul to his Creator,—and thus
they proceeded with it to the church of the Celestins. When a most
solemn service had been performed, the body was interred in a beautiful
chapel he himself had founded and built. After the service, all the
princes, and others who had attended it, returned to their homes.

Many suspicions were formed, as to the authors of this assassination of
the duke of Orleans; and at first it was thought to have been
perpetrated by sir Aubert de Canny, from the great hatred he bore the
duke, for having carried off his wife[111], by whom he had a son, of
whom, and his education, I shall say more hereafter. The truth was soon
known who were the guilty persons, and that sir Aubert was perfectly
innocent of the crime.

The queen Isabella was so much alarmed the day she heard of this murder
being committed thus near her hôtel, that, although she was not
recovered from her lying in, she had herself carried by her brother
Louis of Bavaria, and others, to a litter, and thence conveyed to the
hôtel de St Pol, where she was lodged in the adjoining chamber to that
of the king, for her greater security.

The night this murder was committed the count de St Pol and many others
of the nobility armed themselves, and went to the hôtel de St Pol, where
the king resided, not knowing how far these matters might be carried.

When the body of the duke of Orleans had been interred, as has been
related, the princes of the blood assembled at the hôtel of the king of
Sicily, with the council of state, whither the provost of Paris and
others of the king’s lawyers were summoned, and ordered by the princes
to make the most diligent inquiries, by every possible means, after the
perpetrators and accomplices of this base act. All the gates of Paris
were commanded to be closed, except two, and those to be well guarded,
that all who might pass them should be known.

Having given these orders, the lords and the council retired to their
hôtels in much sorrow and grief. On the morrow, the council was again
assembled at the king’s palace of St Pol, in the presence of the king of
Sicily, the dukes of Berry, Burgundy and Bourbon, and other great lords.
On the entrance of the provost of Paris, he was asked by the duke of
Berry what measures he had taken to discover the murderers of so great a
prince as the king’s brother. The provost replied, that he had used all
diligence in his researches, but in vain,—adding, that if the king and
the great lords present would permit him to search their hôtels, and
those of other great lords in Paris, he made no doubt but that he should
discover the murderers and their accomplices. The king of Sicily, and
the dukes of Berry and Bourbon, gave him instant orders to search
wherever he pleased.

The duke of Burgundy, hearing such positive orders given, began to be
alarmed, and, drawing king Louis and his uncle, the duke of Berry,
aside, briefly[112] confessed to them what he had done, saying, that by
the temptation of the devil he had committed the murder by means of
Auctonville and his accomplices[113]. The two princes were so much
astonished and grieved at this confession that they were scarcely
enabled to make him any reply, but what they did say was reproving him
bitterly for having committed so base an act against his
cousin-german[114].

After this confession of the duke of Burgundy, they returned to the
council-chamber, but did not immediately declare what had passed between
them,—when the council broke up, and all retired to their hôtels.

On the ensuing day, which was Saturday, the lords before mentioned again
assembled at ten o’clock in the morning, at the hôtel de Neelle, where
the duke of Berry resided, to hold another council. The duke of Burgundy
came thither as usual, attended by the count Waleran de St Pol; but when
he was about to enter the council-chamber, the duke of Berry said to
him, ‘Fair nephew, do not now enter the council-chamber, for it is
displeasing to all the members that you should come among them.’ On
saying this, the duke of Berry re-entered the council-chamber, ordering
the door to be closed, according to the resolutions of the council.

The duke of Burgundy was greatly confused at this,—and being unresolved
how to proceed, said to the count de St Pol, ‘Good cousin, what should I
do?’ The count replied, ‘My lord, you have only to return to your hôtel,
since it is not agreeable to the lords of the council that you should
sit among them.’ The duke said, ‘Good cousin, return with me, to bear me
company;’ but the count answered, ‘My lord, you must excuse me; for I
shall go to the council, since I have been summoned to attend it.’

After these words, the duke of Burgundy, in great fear, returned to his
hôtel of Artois; and to avoid being arrested, on his arrival there, he
mounted a fresh horse, and, attended by six men, hastily quitted Paris
by the gate of Saint Denis,—and only changing horses, but not stopping
at any place, he travelled onwards until he reached his castle of
Bapaume. When he had slept some little, he again continued his route
with all speed to Lille in Flanders. Those whom he had left in his hôtel
at Paris followed him as speedily as they could, to avoid being
imprisoned, of which they were greatly afraid.

In like manner, Rollet d’Auctonville and his accomplices changed their
clothes, and disguised themselves, and escaped from Paris by different
ways, and went to quarter themselves in the castle of Lens in Artois, by
orders of their lord and master John duke of Burgundy.

With so mean an attendance did this duke quit Paris, after the death of
the duke of Orleans, leaving the great lords of France in the utmost
tribulation and distress.

When those of the household of the late duke of Orleans heard of the
secret departure of the duke of Burgundy, they armed themselves, to the
amount of six score, having at their head sir Clugnet de Brabant, and,
mounting their horses, sallied out of Paris in pursuit of the duke of
Burgundy, with the intent of putting him to death, could they overtake
him. The king of Sicily, learning their intentions, sent after to forbid
them executing their plan,—on which they returned, very indignant, to
their hôtels.

It was now publicly known throughout Paris that the duke of Burgundy had
committed this murder; but the Parisians were not well pleased with the
duke of Orleans, for they had learnt that he was the author of all the
heavy taxes that oppressed them, and began to say among themselves in
secret, ‘The knotty stick is smoothed.’

This melancholy event took place in the great winter of the year 1407,
when the frost lasted for sixty-six days with the greatest severity. On
the thaw, the new bridge at Paris was destroyed, and fell into the
Seine; and the floods did very great mischief to many parts of the
kingdom of France.

I have no need, in this chapter, to speak of the great hatred and
jealousy that had taken place between the dukes of Orleans and Burgundy,
prior to the death of the former, as it would occupy too much room; and
besides, they will be fully spoken of in the proceedings which were
shortly afterward instituted,—namely, in the justification which the
duke of Burgundy proposed offering publicly, in the presence of the
princes of the blood, the nobility, both ecclesiastical and secular,
shewing the causes why he openly avowed being the author of the death of
the duke of Orleans, and likewise from the answers which the
dowager-duchess of Orleans and her children made in exculpation of the
late duke,—which shall all be written in this present chronicle exactly
in the manner in which they were proposed in the presence of the whole
royal council, and great numbers of others of different ranks.



                             CHAP. XXXVII.

    THE DUCHESS OF ORLEANS, WITH HER YOUNGEST SON, WAIT ON THE
        KING IN PARIS, TO MAKE COMPLAINT OF THE CRUEL MURDER OF
        THE LATE DUKE HER HUSBAND.


The late duke of Orleans had married the daughter of Galeazzo duke of
Milan, his cousin-german, by whom he left three sons and one
daughter,—namely, Charles, the eldest, who succeeded his father in the
dukedom of Orleans; Philip, count de Vertus; John, count of Angoulême.
The daughter was married to Richard of Brittany. We shall say more
hereafter respecting these princes, and of the fortunes that befel them.

On the 10th day of December, the duchess of Orleans, widow to the late
duke, with her youngest son John, and accompanied by the late queen of
England, now wife to her eldest son, set out for Paris. The king of
Sicily, the dukes of Berry and Bourbon, the counts of Clermont and
Vendôme, the lord Charles d’Albreth, constable of France, and many other
great lords, went out of the town to meet her, attended by a number of
people and horses, and thus escorted her to the hôtel de St Pol, where
the king of France resided. Being instantly admitted to an audience, she
fell on her knees to the king, and made a pitiful complaint to him of
the very inhuman murder of her lord and husband. The king, who at that
time was in his sound senses, having lately recovered from his illness,
raised her up with tears, and assured her he would comply with all her
request, according to the opinion of his council. Having received this
answer, she returned to the hôtel of Orleans, accompanied by the
before-mentioned lords.

On the following Monday, the king of France, by the advice of his
parliament, resumed in court the county of Dreux, Chastel-Thierry, and
Mont d’Arcuelles, and all the lands which the king had given to his
brother for his life.

On the Wednesday after St Thomas’s day, the duchess of Orleans,
accompanied by her youngest son,—the queen of England, her
daughter-in-law,—the chancellor of Orleans, and others of her council,
with many knights and esquires, who had been of the household of the
late duke, all clothed in black, came to the hôtel of St Pol to have an
audience of the king. She found there the king of Sicily, the dukes of
Berry and Bourbon, the chancellor of France, and several others, who,
having demanded an audience for her of the king, instantly obtained it.

She was led into the presence by the count d’Alençon, and with many
tears, and before all the princes, again supplicated the king that he
would do her justice on those who had traitorously murdered her lord and
husband, the late duke of Orleans. The whole manner of this deed she
caused to be declared to the king by her advocate in the parliament; and
the chancellor of Orleans was by her side, who repeated to the advocate
word for word what she wished to have divulged.

She had explained at length the whole history of the murder: how he had
been watched, and the hour and place where the assassins had fallen on
him; and how he had been betrayed by a false message from his lord and
brother the king, giving him to understand that the king had sent for
him,—and ending with declaring that this murder more nearly touched the
king than any other person. The advocate of the duchess concluded by
saying, the king was bound to avenge the death of his brother, as well
in regard to the duchess and her children, from their proximity of
blood, as in respect to the offence which had been committed against
justice and his royal majesty.

The chancellor of France, who was seated at the king’s feet, replied,
with the advice of the dukes and lords present, that the king, having
heard the detail of the murder of his brother, would, as speedily as
possible, do strict and equal justice against the offenders. When the
chancellor had said this, the king himself spoke, and said, ‘Be it known
to all, that the facts thus exposed, relative to the death of our only
brother, affect us most sensibly, and we hold the offence as committed
against our own proper person.’

Upon this the duchess, her son John, and the queen of England, her
daughter-in-law, cast themselves on their knees before the king, and,
with abundance of tears, supplicated him to remember to do good justice
on the perpetrators of the murder of his brother. The king raised them
up, and, kissing them, again promised strict justice, and named a day
for the enforcement of it. After these words they took their leave, and
returned to the hôtel of Orleans.

On the second day ensuing, the king of France came from his palace to
the chamber of parliament, which had been greatly adorned, and seated
himself on the royal throne. He then published an act, in the presence
of the dukes, princes, nobility, clergy, and commonalty of his realm, by
which he ordained, that should he die before the duke of Acquitaine was
of lawful age, notwithstanding this he should govern the kingdom,—and
that all things should be conducted in his name by the three estates of
the realm, until he should be arrived at the proper age to take the
government into his own hands.

Should it happen that his eldest son should die before he came of age,
he ordained that his second son, the duke of Touraine, should succeed
him; and in like manner that his third son should succeed the duke of
Touraine, on his death; but that until these princes should be of the
proper age, the three estates should govern in their name.

These ordinances were very agreeable to the princes of the blood and
council, and were confirmed by them. On the third day of January, the
duchess of Orleans, for herself and children, did homage for the county
of Vertus, and all the other lordships that had been held by her late
husband. She took her oaths of fealty to the king himself, and, having
taken her leave of him, quitted Paris a few days after, and returned
with her state to Blois.



                             CHAP. XXXVIII.

    THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY ASSEMBLES A NUMBER OF HIS DEPENDANTS,
        AT LILLE IN FLANDERS, TO A COUNCIL, RESPECTING THE DEATH
        OF THE DUKE OF ORLEANS.—HE GOES TO AMIENS, AND THENCE TO
        PARIS.


When the duke of Burgundy was at Lille, he called to him the nobles,
clerks, and others of his council, to have their opinion respecting the
death of the late duke of Orleans,—and he was greatly comforted by the
advice they gave him. He went thence to Ghent to his duchess, and there
summoned the three estates of Flanders, to whom he caused the
counsellor, John de la Sancson, to explain publicly the reasons, article
by article, why he had caused the duke of Orleans to be put to death at
Paris; and as he was desirous that the whole should be made as public as
possible, he ordered copies to be given of his explanation to all who
might be desirous of having them. He then demanded, that they would
afford him their aid, in case any thing disagreeable should happen to
him in consequence of what he had done; and the Flemings promised they
would assist him willingly.

In like manner did those of Lille, Douay, and the inhabitants of Artois,
after they had heard the reasons for this death, and the duke’s request
of assistance against all the world, except the king of France and his
children. The reasons he assigned for causing the duke of Orleans to be
put to death were the same, or nearly the same, as those of master John
Petit, when, by command of the duke of Burgundy, he publicly harangued
at Paris, before the royal council, and which shall, hereafter, be very
minutely given.

During this time, the king of Sicily and the duke of Berry sent
messengers with letters to the duke of Burgundy at Lille, whither he was
returned, to require that he would meet them without fail at Amiens, on
an appointed day, which they made known to him, in order to confer and
consult together on what was to be done respecting the death of the duke
of Orleans.

The duke of Burgundy returned for answer, by the messengers, that he
would not fail to meet them; and, in consequence, he requested of the
states of Flanders and Artois to lend him a sum of money, which was
granted to him.

He made grand preparations for his journey, and assembled a very
considerable force. When the day appointed approached, in company with
his two brothers, the duke of Brabant and count of Nevers, with many
other noblemen and gentry, to the amount of three thousand, excellently
armed, and attended by several of his council, he went from Arras to
Corbie, and, on the appointed day, entered Amiens, and lodged at the
house of a citizen called James de Hanghart. He caused to be painted
over the door of this house two lances,—the one with a sharp pointed
head, and the other with a blunt one,—which many of the nobles of his
company said was meant to signify, that he was prepared for war or
peace, accordingly as it might be determined on.

The weather was exceedingly severe at this season, and the country was
covered with snow, insomuch that the king of Sicily and the duke of
Berry, accompanied by about two hundred horse, on leaving Paris, were
forced to employ great numbers of peasants with shovels to clear the
road for them. They arrived at Amiens on the day fixed upon; and the
duke of Burgundy, with his two brothers, magnificently attended, went
out of the town to meet them,—and mutual respects were paid on each
side.

The king of Sicily was lodged at the hôtel of the bishop, and the duke
of Berry at St Martin les jumeaux. At the time that these two princes
left Paris, the duke of Bourbon[115], and his son the count de Clermont,
much grieved and melancholy at the death of the duke of Orleans, did the
same, and returned to the duchy of Bourbon.

The king of Sicily and the duke of Berry had brought with them to Amiens
some of the members of the royal council, to attempt, if possible, a
reconciliation between the two parties of Orleans and Burgundy, for the
advantage of the king and realm; but their attempts were vain, for duke
John’s obstinancy was so great that he would no way consent to ask the
king’s pardon, nor require any remission for what had passed. On the
contrary, he maintained that the king and his council should feel
themselves much obliged to him for what he had done.

In support of this conduct, he had brought with him three doctors in
theology, of high fame and reputation in the university of
Paris,—namely, master John Petit, who afterwards argued it publicly at
Paris, and two others. They declared, in the presence of these two
princes and the royal council at Amiens, that it was lawful for the duke
of Burgundy to act as he had done, in regard to the duke of
Orleans,—adding, that if he had not done it, he would have been greatly
to blame; and they were ready to maintain these two propositions against
all who should say to the contrary.

When the two parties had discussed this matter for some days, and when
those sent by the king perceived they could not bring it to the
conclusion wished for by them, namely peace, they broke up the
conference, and took their departure to Paris, having first signified to
the duke of Burgundy, in the king’s name, that he must not return to
Paris until he was so ordered.

Duke John, however, plainly told them, he should pay no attention to
this order; for that it was his intention to go to Paris as speedily as
possible, to lay his charges and defence publicly before the king and
the Parisians. On the morrow of the departure of the two princes, the
duke of Burgundy, with his two brothers and those who had accompanied
them, returned to the town of Arras, with the exception of Waleran count
de St Pol, who remained for six days after them in Amiens.

When the king of Sicily and the duke of Berry, with the lords of the
council, were returned to Paris, and had made their report to the king
and princes, relating at length the answers which the duke of Burgundy
had made, and that he had asserted the king ought to requite him in
various ways for having caused the death and murder of the duke of
Orleans, they were much disgusted and astonished at the great
presumption and audacity of the duke of Burgundy.

It was talked of differently according to the bias of each party. Those
of Orleans were much angered, and declared, that the king ought to
assemble all his forces to subdue the duke of Burgundy, and punish him
as his conduct deserved. While others, attached to the Burgundy-party,
held a contrary opinion, thinking the duke had done a praise-worthy act
toward the king and his family; and this was the opinion of the greater
part of the Parisians, by whom the duke of Burgundy was much beloved.
The cause of his popularity in Paris were the hopes they entertained,
that through his means the heavy taxes with which they and all France
were oppressed would be taken off,—which the duke of Orleans, when
alive, had been so instrumental in imposing, because he had had a great
share in them.

The duke of Burgundy went shortly after to Flanders, and summoned a
great number of his nobles, gentry and men at arms, to prepare
themselves to accompany him to Paris,—notwithstanding the king of Sicily
and the duke of Berry had forbidden him, in the king’s name, to come
thither until further orders. He did not, however, pay any attention to
this command, but advanced, by short journeys to St Denis, whither the
king of Sicily, and the dukes of Berry and Brittany, and several of the
king’s council, came to visit him,—and again forbade him, in the king’s
name, to enter Paris, if accompanied by more than two hundred men.

The duke of Burgundy, on this, quitted St Denis, in company with his
brother the count de Nevers, his brother-in-law the count de Cleves, and
the duke of Lorraine, with a very large body of men well armed, and
entered Paris, with the intent of justifying his act and his quarrel
with the late duke of Orleans, as well before the king as before all who
might think proper to demand it of him.

The Parisians shewed great joy on his entering the town; and even little
children sung carols in all the squares, which much displeased the king,
the queen, and the princes then in Paris. He dismounted at his hôtel
d’Artois, and was, in truth, greatly beloved by the common people; for
they believed he was much attached to the good of the kingdom, and to
the general weal. This made him more popular than the other princes of
the blood,—and the people freshly remembered the heavy taxes that had
been laid on them since the death of the late duke Philip of Burgundy,
and principally, as they thought, by means of the duke of Orleans, who
was exceedingly unpopular with them; and they considered his death, and
the being delivered from his government, as a peculiar mark of God’s
grace, not foreseeing what was afterward to befal them and the whole
kingdom of France.

When the duke of Burgundy had been some days in Paris, and had learnt
from his friends and partisans how he was to conduct himself, he found
means to obtain an audience of the king, when the princes, clergy and
people should be present, to hear his justification of the murder of the
late duke of Orleans.

He went to the appointed place of audience well armed, and escorted by
the princes and lords whom he had brought with him, and great crowds of
Parisians. During his stay at Paris he was always armed, to the surprise
of the other princes and members of the royal council, who were afraid
to say any thing disagreeable to him, from his popularity with the
citizens, and because he was ever surrounded by men at arms, and had his
hôtel full of them; for he had quartered there the whole, or the greater
part, of those whom he had brought with him. He had also a strong tower
constructed of masonry[116], in which he slept at nights, and his
chamber was strongly guarded. The justification of the duke now follows,
and shall be literally given, as delivered by doctor John Petit.



                              CHAP. XXXIX.

    THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY OFFERS HIS JUSTIFICATION, FOR HAVING
        CAUSED THE DEATH OF THE DUKE OF ORLEANS, IN THE PRESENCE
        OF THE KING AND HIS GREAT COUNCIL.


On the 8th day of March, in the year 1407, duke John of Burgundy offered
his justification for having caused the death of the late duke of
Orleans, at the hôtel de St Pol at Paris, by the mouth of master John
Petit, doctor of theology. There were present, in royal state, the duke
of Guienne[117], dauphin of the Viennois, eldest son and heir to the
king of France, the king of Sicily, the cardinal de Bar[118], the dukes
of Berry, Brittany and Lorraine, and many counts, barons, knights and
esquires, from divers countries, the rector of the university,
accompanied by a great many doctors and other clerks, and a numerous
body of the citizens of Paris and people of all ranks.

John Petit[119] opened his speech in the manner following. ‘In the first
place,’ said he, ‘the duke of Burgundy, count of Flanders, of Artois and
of Burgundy, doubly a peer of France, and dean of the french peerage,
comes hither, with all humility, to pay his reverence to his royal
majesty, like an obedient subject,—to which he is bounden by four
obligations, according to the decisions of the doctors of civil and
canon law. The first of these obligations is,—‘Proximi ad proximum qua
quisque tenetur proximum non offendere. Secunda, est cognatorum ad illos
quorum de genere geniti vel procreati sunt qua tenetur parentes suos non
solum non offendere, sed etiam deffendere verbo et facto. Tertia, est
vassalorum ad dominum qua tenentur non solum non offendere dominum suum,
sed deffendere verbo et facto. Quarta est, non solum non offendere
dominum suum, sed etiam principis injurias vindicare.’

‘Now, my lord of Burgundy is a good Catholic, a prudent man, a lord of a
godly life in the Christian faith, and likewise nearly connected to the
king,—by which he is bound to love him as himself, and to be careful to
avoid giving him any offence. He is his relation by blood, so near as to
be his cousin german, which not only obliges him to be attentive not to
give him offence, but on the slightest ground to defend him by speech
against all who might intend to injure him. Thirdly, he is his vassal,
and is therefore bound to defend him not only by words, but by deeds,
with all the united strength of his power. Fourthly, he is his subject,
by which he is obliged not only to defend him by word and deed against
his enemies, but is bound to avenge him on such as commit, or do intend
to commit, and contrive any evil attempts against his person, should
such come to his knowledge.

‘Beside these obligations, he is also bounden to his royal majesty, from
the daily honours and presents he is in the habit of receiving from
him,—and not only as his relation, vassal and subject, as has been
stated, but as his very humble knight, duke, count and peer of France;
not only a peer of France from two claims, but also the dean of the
peerage, which, next to the crown, is the highest rank and prerogative
in the kingdom of France.

‘The king has likewise had such an affection for him, and shewn him such
great honour as to make him father-in-law to the most noble and potent
lord the duke of Guienne and dauphin of the Viennois, his eldest son and
heir, by his marriage with the eldest daughter of my lord the duke, and
has added to this honour by the marriage of the princess Michelle of
France with the eldest son of my aforesaid lord of Burgundy; and as St
Gregory says, ‘Cum crescunt dona et rationes donorum,’ he is obliged to
defend him from every injury within his power. This he has acknowledged,
does acknowledge, and will acknowledge (if it please God), and will ever
retain in his heart the remembrance of these obligations, which are
twelve in number,—namely, those of neighbour, relation, vassal, subject,
baron, count, duke and peer, count and peer, duke, and dean of the
peerage, and these two marriages.

‘These twelve obligations bind him to love, serve and obey the king, and
to do him every personal reverence and honour, and not only to defend
him against his enemies, but to exercise vengeance against them. In
addition, that prince of noble memory, my late lord of Burgundy his
father, when on his death-bed, commanded him, above all things, to
behave most loyally, honourably, justly and courageously toward the
person of the king of France, his children and his crown; for he greatly
feared his enemies would practise to deprive him of his crown, and that
after his decease they would be too strong for him. It was for this
reason, that when on his death-bed, he insisted on his sons resisting
every attempt of the sort.

‘The wise and determined conduct of my lord duke of Berry, in
conjunction with my above-mentioned deceased lord, must not be
forgotten, in their government of the kingdom, so that not even the
slightest suspicion was ever formed against them.

‘For these reasons, my lord of Burgundy could not feel greater grief of
heart, or more displeasure, than in doing any thing respecting the late
duke of Orleans that might anger the king. The deed that has been done
was perpetrated for the safety of the king’s person, and that of his
children, and for the general good of the realm, as shall be so fully
hereafter explained that all those who shall hear me will be perfectly
satisfied thereof.

‘My lord of Burgundy, therefore, supplicates the king to withdraw from
him any hatred he may have conceived against him, and that he would show
him that benignity and grace due to his loyal vassal and subject, and to
one nearly related to him as he is by blood, while I shall explain the
causes of justification of my lord of Burgundy, in consequence of his
commands, which I cannot refuse, for the two following reasons:

‘In the first place, I am bound by my oath, given to him three years
ago, to serve him. Secondly, on his perceiving that I had very small
benefices, he gave me annually a considerable pension that I might
continue my studies at the schools, which pension has furnished the
greater part of my expenses, and will continue, under his good favour,
so to do.

‘When, however, I consider the very high importance of the matter I have
to discuss, and the great rank of the persons to whom I am to address
myself, and, on the other hand, when I feel how weak I am in
understanding, memory and language, I am seized with apprehension and
fear, so that what abilities and remembrance I may have had are fled. I
have no other remedy, therefore, but to recommend myself to God my
Creator and Redeemer, to his glorious mother, and to my lord St John the
evangelist, the prince of Theologians, that they would have the goodness
to guard me from saying or doing any thing wrong, in following the
advice of my lord St Austin, who says, ‘Libro quarto de doctrina
Christiana circa finem; sive apud populum vel apud quoslibet jamiamque
dicturus, sive quod apud populum dicendum vel ab eis qui voluerint aut
potuerint legendum est dictaturus, oret ut Deus sermonem bonum det in os
ejus. Si enim regina Hester oravit pro suæ gentis salute temporali
locutura apud regem ut in os ejus Deus congruum sermonem daret,
quanto-magis orare debet, ut tale munus accipiat qui pro æterna hominum
salute in verbo et doctrina laborat,’ &c.

‘And because the matters I am to treat of are of such very great moment,
it does not behove so insignificant a person as myself to speak of them,
nor indeed to open my lips before so august and solemn an assembly. I
therefore very humbly entreat you, my noble lords, and the whole
company, that should I utter any thing improper, it may be attributed to
my simplicity and ignorance, and not to malice; for the Apostle says,
‘Ignorans feci: ideoque misericordiam consecutus sum.’

‘I should be afraid to speak of such things as my subject will lead me
to, and which I am charged to say, were it not for the commands of my
lord of Burgundy.—After this, I now protest that I intend no injury
whatever to any person, whether he be alive or dead; and should it
happen that some parts of my speech seem to bear hard for or in the name
of my lord of Burgundy, I pray that I may be held excused, as it will
proceed from his commands, and in his justification, and not otherwise.

‘But some one may put a question to me, saying, Does it belong to a
theologian to offer such justification, in preference to a lawyer? I
reply, that it certainly does not belong to me, who am neither a
theologian nor a lawyer; but to satisfy those who may think such a
question proper, I shall say, that were I a theologian, it might become
a duty under one consideration, namely, that every doctor in theology is
bounden to labour in excusing and justifying his lord, and to guard and
defend his honour and good name, according to the truth, particularly
when his aforesaid lord is good and loyal, and innocent of all crimes.

‘I prove this consideration to be true, from the duty attached to
doctors in theology to preach and say the truth at all times and in all
places. They are likewise styled ‘Legis divinæ professores quia inter
omnes alios doctores ipsi magis tenentur profiteri veritatem.’ Should
they die for having uttered the truth, they become true martyrs.

‘It is not therefore to be wondered at, if I offer my poor abilities in
the justification of my before-mentioned lord, since he has afforded me
the means of pursuing my studies, and, if God please, will continue so
to do. If ever there were a proper time and place to bring forward the
justification of my lord of Burgundy, it is at this moment, and before
this assembly; and such as may find fault with me for so doing are, I
think, to be blamed, for every man of honour and good sense will hold me
excused. In the hope, therefore, that no one will bear me ill will for
this justification, I shall produce an authority for it from St Paul.


    ‘ON COVETOUSNESS.

‘‘Radix omnium malorum cupiditas, quam quidem appetentes erraverunt a
fide,’ 1 Tim. vi. which may be thus translated, Covetousness is the root
of all evil; for the moment any one is in her net, he follows her
doctrine:—she has even made apostates of some who have been too much
seduced by her. This proposition contains three dogmas: first, that
covetousness is the motive of all evil to such as she has entangled by
her wiles; secondly, that she has caused many apostates, who, having
denied the catholic faith, have turned to idolatry; thirdly, that she
has made others traitors, and disloyal to their kings, princes, and
lords paramount.

‘These three propositions I shall bring forward as my major, and then
add a minor, for the complete justification of my said lord of Burgundy.
I may indeed divide these into two parts; the first consisting of my
major, and the second of my minor. The first will comprehend four
others, and discuss the first subject of my theme,—the second the
second,—and the third the third. In the fourth article, I propose to
bring forward some facts as the ground-work of my lord’s justification.

‘In regard to the first article, that covetousness is the root of all
evil, I may bring forward an instance to the contrary from the holy
Scriptures, which declares, ‘Initium omnis peccati superbia.’ Eccles. x.
‘Ergo, non est cupiditas radix omnium malorum.’

‘Since the holy church says that pride is the foundation of sin,
covetousness is not the root of all evil,—and thus the words of St Paul
do not seem true. In answer to this I say, from St John the evangelist,
‘Nolite diligere mundum nec ea quæ in eo sunt. Si quis diligit mundum,
non est charitas Patris in eo: quoniam omne quod est in mundo aut est
concupiscentia carnis, aut oculorum, aut superbia vitæ, quæ non est ex
Patre sed mundo: et mundus transibit, et concupiscentia carnis; sed qui
facit voluntatem Dei vivet in æternum.’

‘That is to say, Do not love the world, nor place your sole happiness in
worldly things; for the pleasures of this world consist in covetousness
and in a love of the flesh,—in the pursuit of worldly riches and vain
honours, which are not the passions given us by God. All worldly things
are transitory,—and the world dies and its desires with it; but he who
does the will of God will enjoy everlasting glory with him.

‘It appears clearly from this quotation from St John that there are
three sorts of covetousness, which include within them every sin,
namely, covetousness of vain honours,—covetousness of worldly
riches,—covetousness of carnal delights; and it was thus understood by
the Apostle when he said, ‘Radix omnium malorum cupiditas.’

‘Covetousness being understood to appear in the three forms aforesaid,
and mentioned by St John,—the first of which is that of vain honours,
which is nothing more than a wicked desire, and a disordered inclination
to deprive another of his honours or lordships,—this passion is called
by St John _superbia vitæ_, and contains within it every vice, namely,
pride, vain-glory, anger, hatred and envy; for when he who is possessed
by this passion cannot accomplish his will, he becomes enraged against
God, and against those that stand in his way, and thus commits the sin
of anger, which increases soon against the person in possession of the
aforementioned superiority, to so great a degree that he practises to
put him to death.

‘The second covetousness is called ‘the covetousness of worldly riches,’
which is the passion to take away from another his wealth and moveables,
and is called by the evangelist _concupiscentia oculorum_. It includes
within it usury, avarice, and rapine.

‘The third covetousness is the _concupiscentia carnis_, which is merely
disorderly desires for carnal delights, or perhaps indolence; as, for
example, when a monk or other religious cannot endure to go to matins,
because he is more comfortable in his bed. Sometimes it consists in
gluttony, as when any one devours too much meat or wine, because they
are pleasing to his tongue and savoury to his palate. At other times, it
may shew itself in luxury, and in other shapes and manners which it is
unnecessary to explain.

‘My first article is therefore clear, when I said, that ‘covetousness
was the root of all evil,’ if we understand it as the apostle did, when
he said, ‘Radix omnium malorum cupiditas: et hoc de primo articulo hujus
primæ partis.’

‘To enter on the subject of the second article of my major, I shall take
it for granted that the greatest possible crime on earth is the crime of
high treason, for the highest honour under heaven consists in the royal
majesty. Can there then be a greater crime than any injury offered to
the royal majesty? As this crime, therefore, is the deepest, the
punishment of it should be the most severe.

‘There are two sorts of kingly dignity,—the one divine and perpetual,
the other human and temporal; and in like manner, there are two kinds of
high treason,—the first the crime of treason against the divine, and the
second against the human majesty. That of high treason against the
divine majesty may be again divided into two parts; first, when an
injury is offered personally to our Sovereign Lord God and Creator, such
as heresy and idolatry; secondly, when they are committed against the
spouse of our holy Lord God JESUS CHRIST,—namely the holy Church, and
when any schism or division is introduced within it. I therefore mean to
say, that heretics and idolaters commit the crime of high treason in the
first degree, and schismatics in the second.

‘The crime of human high treason may be divided into four degrees:
first, consisting of offences done personally against the prince,—of
offences done to the person of the queen, his spouse,—of such as are
done personally against their children,—and fourthly, of injuries done
to the public state. As the crime of high treason has been ever
considered as one of the most atrocious, the laws have ordained much
severer punishments against it than for any others. In cases of heresy
and human high treason, a man may be accused after his death, and a
process may be carried on against him: should he be convicted of heresy,
his body is taken up from the grave, his bones put into a bag, carried
to the place of execution, and burnt. In like manner, should any one be
convicted after his decease of human high treason, his body is taken up
from the grave, his bones put into a sack, all his wealth in land or
moveables is confiscated to the prince, and his children declared
incapable of holding lands or of succeeding to any property.

‘Having distinguished the crimes of high treason, I shall now proceed to
prove the second article of my major by authorities and examples,
namely, that covetousness has made many apostates, who have denied the
catholic faith, and worshipped idols. I have found many instances to
prove this, but it would take up too much time to relate the whole: I
shall confine myself to three only.


    ‘OF JULIAN THE APOSTATE.

‘The first example is Julian the apostate, who was a Christian and a
churchman; but to arrive at the imperial dignity of emperor of Rome, he
denied the catholic faith and his baptism, and adored idols, telling the
Christians, by way of colouring his apostacy, ‘Christus vere dicit in
evangelio suo, Nisi quis renunciaverit omnibus que possidet, non potest
meus esse discipulus.’ Saying, ‘You who wish to be Christians cannot
possess any thing.’

‘You must know, that this Julian was a churchman, very learned, and of
high descent; and it was said that he might, had he laboured for it,
have been pope; but as the popedom was at that time in a state of
poverty, he cared not for it,—and the imperial dignity being the highest
in the world, he was very eager to obtain it by any means. Having
considered that the pagans were sufficiently strong to refuse to be
governed by any Christian, he denied his baptism and the catholic faith,
and adopted the pagan religion in the adoration of idols. He also
persecuted the Christians, and defamed the name of JESUS CHRIST, which
he looked to as one means of succeeding to the empire.

‘The reigning emperor shortly after died; and the pagans, knowing that
Julian was of high birth, great learning, and the most bitter persecutor
of the Christians in the world, and who said more than anyone else
against our holy mother the church, elected him emperor.

‘I will now tell you the horrible death that put an end to his days.
During his government, the Persians rebelled against Rome. He collected
a large army to subdue them, and swore on the altars of his damned gods,
that should he return victorious, he would utterly destroy all
Christendom. In the course of his march with the army, he passed a city
called Cesarea, in the country of Cappadocia, where he met a very
learned doctor in theology, who was bishop of that town, and who is now
known by the name of St Basil.

‘He was an excellently good man, and, by means of the truth of his
doctrines, all the inhabitants of that country were become Christians.

‘St Basil waited on the apostate Julian, made his obeisance to him, and
presented him with three barley-loaves. The emperor was indignant at the
present, and said, ‘Does he send me mare’s food? I will return the
compliment by sending him horse-meat, namely, three bushels of oats.’

‘The good man excused himself, saying that it was such bread as he and
those of that country eat. The emperor, however, swore, that on his
return, he would destroy the town so completely that a plough should
pass over the ground, and make a field of the spot where the town now
stood, which field should bear wheat—‘Itaque juravit quod faceret eam
farriferam et non austeram’—and marched on with his army.

‘St Basil and the Christians took counsel together how they could save
the city from this threatened destruction, and imagined it would be best
to offer the emperor all their jewels and treasure to appease his anger.
They likewise proposed going in procession to a church of our Lady,
situated on a mountain near the city, and to remain there for three days
to pray to God to save them and their city from ruin.

‘On the third night, St Basil had a vision, in which he saw a great
company of angels and saints assembled before a lady, who thus spoke to
one of the saints, called the chevalier Mercure: ‘Thou hast always been
a faithful servant to my son and to me; and on this account I command
thee to go and kill the emperor Julian, that false apostate, who so
bitterly persecutes the Christians, and says such infamous things of my
son and me.’ She instantly restored Mercury to flesh and blood, who,
like a good knight, took his lance and shield from the roof of the
church where it had been affixed after his interment there, and went as
he was commanded. When he overtook Julian, he thrust his lance through
his body in the presence of his servants: having withdrawn his lance, he
threw it across his neck, and none of the emperor’s attendants knew who
he was.

‘St Basil, after this vision was ended, hastened to the church wherein
was the tomb of the knight, and found neither body nor lance, nor
shield. He called to him the keepers of the church, and asked them what
was become of the lance and shield? They replied, that in the preceding
night they had been carried away, but knew not how or by whom.

‘St Basil returned instantly to the mountain, and related his vision to
the clergy and people, adding that he had just visited the church where
the knight had been buried, but that neither his shield nor lance was to
be found, which was a strong confirmation of the truth of the vision.

‘The whole town, shortly after this, visited the church; and the shield
and lance were seen hanging to the roof, as formerly, over the tomb of
the knight,—but the point of the lance was covered with blood.

‘It was imagined that this action had required but one day and two
nights, and that on the second night the body had been replaced in the
tomb, and the arms under the roof. The point of the lance was covered
with the blood of Julian the apostate, as has been mentioned; and the
chronicle adds, that when slain, he received the blood in his hand,
saying, _Vicisti me Galilæe!_ that is to say, ‘Thou hast conquered me,
Galilean!’ alluding to JESUS CHRIST, and throwing his blood in the air.

‘The same chronicle says, that one of the counsellors and sophists of
this Julian had a similar vision respecting his miraculous death, and
that he came to St Basil to be baptised, like a good Christian. He told
him he had been present when the emperor was killed, and saw him throw
his blood from his hand up into the air. Thus ended miserably the life
of Julian the apostate.

‘We have another example in the monk Sergius, who was a Christian of the
church, but through covetousness got admitted into the company of
Mohammed, and became his apostle. This monk, considering that Mohammed
was a great captain in the armies of Syria and other countries beyond
sea, and that the principal lords of the country were almost all
destroyed by the plague, leaving only children behind them, said to
Mohammed, ‘If you will follow my advice, I will shortly make you the
greatest and most respected lord in the universe.’

‘Mohammed consented to his proposals; and it was agreed that Mohammed
should conquer the whole country by force of arms, and make himself lord
of it. The monk was to renounce the Christian religion, and compose a
new religious code, in the name of Mohammed. This was done; and all the
countries of Arabia, Syria, Africa, Fez, Morocco, Granada, Persia,
Egypt, with several others that had been Christians, were converted, or
the greater part of them, to the religion of Mohammed, six hundred years
after the incarnation of our Lord.

‘Mohammed gave to this monk great abundance of worldly riches, which his
covetousness received to the eternal damnation of his soul.

‘The third example is that of the prince or duke of Simeon, one of the
twelve tribes of the children of Israel. He was a very powerful prince,
and his name was Zambry, and was so smitten with concupiscence, and
carnal desires, for a pagan lady, who would not submit to his will
unless he consented to adore her idols, that he apostatised, and not
only adored idols himself, but induced many of his people and subjects
to do the same. The holy Scriptures thus speak of him: ‘At illi
comederunt et adoraverunt deos earum. Initiatusque est Israel
Beelphegor. Et iratus Dominus ait ad Moysem, tolle cunctos principes
populi, et suspende illos contra solem in patibulis, &c. et paulopost:
et ecce unus de filiis Israel intravit coram fratribus suis ad scortum
madianitem, &c. Quod cum vidisset surrexit de medio multitudinis
Phinees, et arrepto pugione ingressus est post virum Israelitem in
lupinar, et perfodit ambos simul in locis genitalibus. Et occisi sunt
viginti quatuor millia hominum. Et sic Phinees placavit Deum. Et ideo
innocentius inde miseria conditionis humanæ ait. Extrema libidinis
turpitudo: quæ non solum mentem effæminat, sed etiam corpus aggravat.
Omne namque peccatum quodcunque fecerit homo extra corpus est; qui autem
fornicatur in corpus suum peccat.’

‘That is to say, This duke and a great part of his people committed
fornication with pagan and saracen women of the country of Moab, who
induced them to worship their idols. God was much angered thereat, and
said to Moses, who was their sovereign commander, ‘Take all the princes
of the people and hang them up on a gibbet in the face of the sun.’ ‘But
why,’ said he, ‘hang all the princes?’ Because part of them were
consenting to this crime, and the other part, though not following their
example, were neglectful to avenge such heavy offences against God,
their Creator.

‘Moses instantly assembled all the princes and people of Israel, and
told them what God had commanded him. The people began to weep, because
the offenders were so powerful the judges dared not condemn them,—and
duke Zambry had full twenty-four thousand men of his tribe.

‘This duke quitted the assembly, and, in the presence of all the people,
entered the house of the pagan lady, the mistress of his heart, who was
the handsomest woman of the country. A valiant man, named Phineas,
roused by this insult to his God, stepped forth, and said, ‘I vow to
God, that I will instantly avenge this offence.’ He departed without
saying more, or having any commands from Moses, and having entered the
lady’s house found her in dalliance with her lover, when, with a knife
or dagger, he pierced their bodies through, and instantly put them to
death. The twenty-four thousand adherents of the duke wished to revenge
his death in battle, but, through God’s grace, they were the weaker, and
were all slain.

‘This example of the valiant man Phineas is worthy of notice,—for he was
so much enamoured with the love of God, and so grieved on seeing the
daring insult offered to him, that he was regardless of exposing his own
life to danger; nor did he wait for the orders of Moses to perform the
act,—but he did it because he saw that the judges would not do their
duty, some through neglect, others from fear of duke Zambry.

‘See what praise and recompense he received for this act, as it is
written in the holy Scriptures: ‘Dixit Dominus ad Moysem, Phinees filius
Heleazari filii Aaron sacerdotis avertit iram meam a filiis Israel, quia
zelo meo commotus est contra eos ut non ipse delerem filios Israel in
zelo meo idcirco loquere ad eum. Ecce do ei pacem fæderis mei et erit
tam ipsi quam semini ejus pactum sacerdotii sempiternum: quia zelatus
est pro Deo suo, et expiavit scelus filiorum Israel.’

‘That is to say, That the act he had done was so agreeable to God that
he rewarded him, by ordaining that none but such as were of his blood
should be anointed priests; and this is confirmed by the writings in the
Old Testament: ‘Placuit et cessavit seditio, et reputatum est ei ad
justitiam usque in sempiternum.’ Scribitur in Psalmo. Which means, That
this action redounded to the honour, glory and praise of Phineas and his
family for ever.

‘Thus it plainly appears, that concupiscence and disorderly lusts had so
entangled the duke Zambry in their snares that he became an idolater,
and worshiped idols.—Here concludes the third example of my second
article.

‘Respecting the third article of my major, I must show from the
authority of the Bible, which none dare contradict, that covetousness
has made many become disloyal, and traitors to their sovereigns; but
although I could produce numerous instances from the Scriptures and
other writings, I shall confine my examples to three only.


    ‘OF LUCIFER.

‘The first instance is that of Lucifer, the most perfect of all the
creatures God had made, of whom the prophet Isaiah says, ‘Quomodo
cecidisti de cœlo Lucifer, qui mane orieberis: qui dicebas in corde tuo,
conscendam supra astra Dei, exaltabo solium meum, ascendam supra
altitudinem nubium et similis ero altissimo. Veruntamen ad infernum
detraheris in profundum laci.’ Scrib. Is. xiv.

‘Lucifer, as the prophet writes, considering himself as the most perfect
of creatures, said, within his own mind, ‘I will exert myself so greatly
that I will place myself and my throne above the angels, and rival God;’
that is to say, he would have the same obedience paid to him. For this
end, he deceived numbers of angels, and brought them over to his party,
so that they were to do him homage and obedience, as to their sovereign
lord, and be no way subject to GOD; and Lucifer was to hold his
government in like manner to GOD, and independent of all subjection to
him.

‘Thus he wished to deprive GOD, his Sovereign and Creator, of the
greater part of his power, and attribute it to himself, being induced to
it by covetousness, which had taken possession of his mind.

‘St Michael, on discovering his intentions, came to him, and said, that
he was acting very wrong; and that, since GOD had formed him the most
perfect of his creatures, he was bounden in gratitude to pay him greater
reverence and obedience than all the others, for the gracious favours
that had been shewn him. Lucifer replied, that he would do no such
thing. St Michael answered, that neither himself nor the other angels
would suffer him to act so injuriously to their Sovereign Lord and
Creator. In short, a battle ensued between them,—and many of the angels
took part on either side, but the greater number were for St Michael.

‘St Michael slew Lucifer with a perdurable death,—and he and his legions
were cast out of heaven by force, and thrown into hell. Their sentence
is in the xiith chap. of the Revelations: ‘Michael et angeli ejus
preliabantur cum dracone, et draco pugnabat et angeli ejus cum eo;’ et
paulum post,—‘et projectus est in terram draco ille, et angeli ejus
missi sunt cum eo. Et audivi vocem magnam in cœlo dicentem, nunc facta
est salus, et virtus, et regnum Deo nostro;’—which means, That St John
saw in a vision this battle, and how Lucifer was cast with his angels
from heaven into hell. When the battle was won, he heard a loud voice
proclaiming through the heavens, ‘At present, peace is restored to our
Lord God and to his saints.’—Thus ends the first example of the third
article.

‘The second instance refers to the fair Absalon, son to David king of
Jerusalem.—Absalon, considering that his father was become old and very
feeble, practised a conspiracy against him, and had himself anointed
king. He collected ten thousand fighting men, whom he marched toward
Jerusalem, to put his father to death and take possession of the town.

‘King David received intelligence of what was intended, and in
consequence fled from the city of Jerusalem, with some of his faithful
friends, to a town beyond Jordan, whither he summoned his adherents. A
battle was shortly proposed in the forest of Lendeue, whither Absalon
came with a large force of men at arms, leading them as their prince.
His constable and other knights advised him to remain within the forest,
for it was strongly situated. This he did; but as he was one of the most
expert knights in the world, he would himself form his army into three
battalions: the first was put under the command of Joab, his constable;
the second was given to Bisay, brother to Joab; and the third was
commanded by Eschey, son to Jeth. When the battle took place, it was
very severe and hard fought; but the party of Absalon was slain or put
to flight.

‘It happened, as Absalon was flying on his mule after the defeat of his
party, that he passed under an oak, whose spreading branches caught hold
of his hair, and thus suspended him, while his mule galloped from under
him. Absalon had that day taken off his helmet from his head, the more
readily to escape,—and his hair was extremely thick and long, reaching
to his girdle, and got twisted among the branches, so that he seemed to
hang there miraculously, as a punishment for the disloyal treason he had
formed against his father and sovereign.

‘Absalon was seen in this situation by one of the men at arms of Joab,
constable to king David,—and he hastened to tell Joab of it, who
replied, ‘When thou sawest him, why didst thou not kill him? and I would
have given thee ten golden besants, and a handsome girdle.’ The man
answered,—‘If thou wouldst have given me ten thousand besants, I should
not have dared to have touched him, or done him the least evil; for I
was present when the king commanded thee, and all his men at arms,
saying, ‘Save me my child Absalon! Oh, save him from being slain!’’

‘Joab said, ‘that the commands of the king were contrary to his honour
and safety; and that so long as Absalon should live, the king would be
always in peril, and we shall not have peace in the kingdom. Lead me
where Absalon is.’ And the man led him to where Absalon was hanging by
his hair. Joab, on seeing him, thrust his lance thrice into his body,
near to the place of his heart, and then had him thrown into a ditch and
covered with stones; for according to the laws of God, all traitors
against their fathers and sovereigns were to be put to death and covered
with stones.

‘When David heard of the death of his son, he went into an upper
chamber, and wept bitterly, uttering these words: ‘Fili mi Absalon, fili
mi quis mihi tribuat ut ego moriar pro te Absalon fili mi[120].’

‘It was told to Joab and the other captains, that David was inconsolable
for the loss of Absalon, which made them very indignant; and Joab went
to David, and said,—‘Confudisti hodie vultus omnium servorum tuorum qui
salvam fecerunt animam tuam. Diligis odientes te, et odio habes
diligentes te, et ostendisti hodie quia non curas de ducibus tuis, et de
servis tuis, et vere cognovi modo quod si Absalon viveret, et nos omnes
occubuissemus tunc placeret tibi. Nunc igitur surge et precede et
alloquens satisfac servis tuis: juro enim tibi per dominum, quod si non
exieris, ne unus quidem remansurus sit tecum nocte hac; et pejus erit
hoc tibi, quam omnia mala, quæ venerunt super te ab adolescentia tua
usque in præsens.’ Scribitur, 2 Reg. xix.

‘That is to say, The good knight Joab went to the king, and said to him
without disguising his sentiments, ‘Thou hatest those who love thee, and
art fond of such as hate thee: thou wouldst that we, who have risked our
lives in battle to save thee, had perished, so that Absalon had lived.
Thy captains and people are so wroth against thee that, unless thou
arise and seat thyself at thy gate to thank them cheerfully as they
enter thereat, they will deprive thee of thy kingdom, and choose another
king; and no greater misfortune will have befallen thee from thy youth
to this day, unless thou dost as I have advised.’

‘The king, feeling the justice of what Joab had said, went and seated
himself at the gate to thank his men at arms on their entrance, and made
them good cheer.

‘In this example, it is to be noticed, that Joab killed Absalon contrary
to the king’s express orders, because they were prejudicial to the
honour of God, of the king, and of the people.

‘Notwithstanding that Joab slew Absalon, they had always been intimate
friends, insomuch that Joab had made peace for him with his father David
for a murder which he had committed on the eldest of the king’s sons,
and for which Absalon had been a fugitive from the kingdom four years.

‘Some may, however, argue the contrary, because king David, when on his
death-bed, charged his son Solomon, who was to succeed him, to punish
Joab; but I am sure it was not for the above-mentioned act,—for although
Joab, at the time he slew Absalon, was a good and loyal knight, he
committed too great faults toward the end of his days. The first, when
he killed a very good knight and man at arms, called Amasa,—and,
secondly, by putting that excellent knight Abner to death treacherously,
namely, by embracing him, and at the same time, thrusting a knife into
his body; and as king David had not punished Joab for these two enormous
crimes himself, he felt such compunctions of conscience for it on his
death-bed, that he ordered king Solomon to have it done when he should
be deceased, and punish him in this mortal life, that Joab might escape
perpetual damnation, saying thus: ‘Tu scis quæ fecerit mihi Joab filius
Sarviæ quæ fecerit duobus principibus exercitus Israel, Abner filio Ner,
et Amasæ filio Jether, quos occidit, et effudit sanguinem belli in pace.
Facias ergo juxta sapientiam tuam, et non deduces caniciem ejus pacifice
ad infernos.’ Scribitur, 2 Reg. xi.

‘Which means, ‘That the two knights, chiefs of the chivalry of Israel,
had been disloyally slain, when at peace with God and man. I am hurt in
mind for having been too lenient towards him; and if thou dost not
punish him for these two crimes, thou wilt cause the damnation of his
soul.’

‘I must here remark, that there is no knight so perfect but who may
commit a fault, and one indeed so great as to do away all his former
good actions. And therefore men do not at justs and at battles cry out,
‘The brave for ever!’ (_Aux preux!_) but men always cry out, ‘The sons
of the brave!’ (_Aux fils de preux!_) after the deaths of their fathers.
For no knight can be judged _preux_ (valiant, or brave) till after his
death[121].

‘My third instance shall be of Athalia, queen of Jerusalem, of whom the
holy Scriptures say,—‘Athalia vero mater regis Ochosiæ, videns filium
suum mortuum surrexit et interfecit omne semen regium. Tollens autem
Josaba filia regis Joran et soror Ochosiæ Joas filium Ochosiæ furata est
eum de medio filiorum regis qui interficiebantur et nutricem ejus de
triclinio et abscondit eum a facie Athaliæ ut non interficeretur,’ &c. 4
Reg. xi.

‘Which, being translated, means, That the wicked Athalia, observing king
Ochosias, her son, was dead, and had left but very young children to
succeed him, through lust of governing the kingdom, slew all the king’s
children excepting Joas, who, through the courage of a valiant lady,
inspired thereto by the grace of God, was carried away from his cradle,
and sent by her secretly to the high priest, who educated him until he
was seven years old.

‘This wicked queen reigned tyrannically for seven years, when the
high-priest had her put to death by those who lay in wait for the
purpose. He then caused the young child to be anointed king, who,
notwithstanding his youth, being only seven years of age, governed his
kingdom excellently well, through the advice of the high-priest and
other prudent counsellors. The holy Scriptures say, ‘Joas regnavit 40.
annis in Hierusalem fecitque rectum coram Domino cunctis diebus quibus
docuit eum Joiada sacerdos.’

‘Thus you have the third example, which shows how the concupiscence of
vain honours is nothing more than a disorderly passion, to take by force
the possessions of another. This it was that made queen Athalia a
murderess, false and disloyal, and induced her to obtain, by a
succession of crimes, the government of the kingdom of Jerusalem.

‘You have heard how she was privily slain by such as lay in wait for
her, which is a lawful manner of slaying tyrants, and is the death which
all such ought to suffer.—With this I conclude the third article of my
major.

‘I come now to my fourth article; to which I propose adding eight facts,
by way of conclusion, and eight others as corollaries, the stronger to
lay my foundation for the justification of my aforesaid lord of
Burgundy. I shall first lay it down as law, that any subject-vassal, who
by an artful desire of obtaining the realm of his sovereign lord and
king, shall employ any witchcraft, or other illegal means, against his
corporal safety, sins most grievously, and commits the crime of high
treason, in the first degree, and, consequently, is deserving a double
death.

‘I secondly prove my proposition, by adding, that any subject-vassal who
is an enemy to his sovereign lord sins mortally. My conclusion is
therefore true,—and that he is a tyrant I shall prove by my lord St
Gregory, who says:

         ‘Tyrannus est proprie qui non dominus reputatur.
          Non juste principatur; aut non principatu decoratur.
          Nam sicut regnum rectus principatus dicitur.
          Sic dominium perversum tyrannis nuncupatur.’

‘It appears plain, that whoever commits the crime of high treason
against the person of the prince is guilty of the highest possible
offence, and is deserving of a double death. By the first death, I mean
the separation of the body from the soul, which causes a perdurable
damnation; for St John the evangelist says, ‘Qui vivit non morietur nec
lædetur a morte secunda;’ that is to say, That every human creature who
shall obtain a victory over Covetousness and her three daughters, need
not be afraid of the second death, namely, eternal damnation.

‘The second fact is, that in cases where a subject-vassal has been
guilty of this crime, he cannot be too severely or too speedily
punished; but a man of rank is more deserving of punishment than a
simple subject, a baron than a simple knight, a count than a baron, a
duke than a count, the cousin to the king than a foreigner, the king’s
brother than a cousin, the son to the king than his brother. Such is the
first part of the second fact,—and I thus prove the second part; for as
the obligation is greater, by many degrees, to desire to preserve the
safety of the king’s person and the good of the state, so the punishment
of those who act contrary increases according to their rank; and the
consequence I draw from it will prove true, namely, that the son is more
bounden than the brother, the brother than the cousin, a duke than a
count, a count than a baron, a baron than a knight, &c. to guard and
preserve the honour of the king and the welfare of the realm; for to
each of these ranks and dignities is a certain corresponding duty
attached,—and the higher the rank, the greater the obligation, for the
larger the possessions, and the more noble the person, the more he is
bounden, as St Gregory, before quoted, says, ‘Cum crescunt dona et
rationes donorum.’

‘To continue my argument: the nearer the person is to the king by blood
or hereditary honours, should he commit such crimes, it is by far more
scandalous than if they were done by others removed at a greater
distance from royalty. It is more scandalous for a duke or a potent
lord, nearly related to the king, to practise his death, in order to
gain his kingdom, than it would be for a poor subject no way related to
the king; and being more iniquitous, the more deserving punishment.

‘I shall, in the third place, prove my proposition by saying, Where
there is greater danger there should be a greater degree of punishment;
for the machinations of near relations to the king are of far more
importance and more perilous than those of poor people. And as they are
more dangerous, they are deserving of severer punishment to obviate the
perils that may happen, and to check the desires that may arise in such
as are so near to the crown, to gain possession of it. For this end,
they may exert every influence, by force or otherwise, to grasp it,
which a poorer subject would never think of doing, as he could not have
any expectations of wearing it.

‘My third truth is, That it is lawful for any subject, without any
particular orders from any one, but from divine, moral and natural law,
to slay, or to cause to be slain, such disloyal traitors; I say it is
not only lawful for any one to act thus in such cases, but it is also
meritorious and highly honourable, particularly when the person is of
such high rank that justice cannot be executed by the sovereign himself.
I shall prove this truth by twelve reasons, in honour of the twelve
Apostles.

‘The three first reasons are drawn from the authorities of three moral
philosophers: three others are from three dogmas of sacred theology of
St Augustin, who says, in the last part of the second book of sentences,
‘Quando aliquis dominium sibi per violentiam surripit nolentibus
subditis, vel etiam ad consensum coactis: et non est recursus ad
superiorem per quem de tali judicium posset fieri. Talis enim qui ad
liberationem patriæ talem tirannum occidit, laudem et præmium accissit.
Hic primum laudatur. Item debet laudari per quæ facit opus dignum laude.
Idem licitum præmium et honorabile accipit, et idem debet accipere. Ille
facit opus meritorium quia nullum opus est dignum, primo nisi fieret
meritorium.’ To translate this briefly, the holy doctor declares, that a
subject who shall put to death such a tyrant does a work deserving
praise and remuneration.

‘My second authority is as follows: ‘Salisberiensie, sacræ theologiæ
eximii doctoris in libro suo Policratici, li. ii. cap. 15. Sic dicit;
amico adulari non licet; sed aurem tiranni mulcere licitum est, ei
namque scilicet tiranno licet adulari quem licet occidere;’ that is to
say, It is unlawful to flatter a friend, but not so to deceive by fair
words the ears of a tyrant; for since it is lawful to put him to death,
it is allowable to cheat him by flattering speeches.

‘My third authority is from several doctors, whom I class together, not
to exceed the number of three, namely, ‘Ricardi de media villa,
Alexandri de Hallis et Astensis, in summa qui conclusionem præfatam
ponunt in iii. efforum;’ adding, for higher authority, the confirmation
of St Peter the apostle, who says, ‘Subditi estote regi quasi
præcellenti sive ducibus, tanquam ab eo missis ad vindictam
malefactorum, audem vero bonorum, quia sic est voluntas Dei.’ Scribitur
primæ Pet. ii. That is to say, It is the will of God that all should
obey the king, as sovereign lord over his kingdom; and the duke, as
being sent by the king to punish those who have done ill, and remunerate
the good.

‘Hence it follows, that dukes are obliged, to the utmost of their power,
to avenge the injuries that are done, or may be intended against the
king’s person, and to oppose all such attempts as may come to their
knowledge.

‘I now proceed to the authorities from moral philosophers, the first of
which is,—‘Ante forum principis pluribus locis cuilibet subditorum
licitum est occidere tyrannum, et non solum licitum immo laudabile.’
That is to say, It is lawful for any subject to destroy a tyrant, and
not only lawful, but even honourable and worthy of praise.

‘Cicero, in libro de Officiis, ‘Laudatis illos qui illum Cæsarem
interfecerunt quamvis esset sibi familiarium amicus eo quod jura imperii
quasi tyrannus usurpaverat.’ That is, Tully writes, in his noble book on
morality, That those who killed Julius Cæsar are praiseworthy, because
Julius had usurped the government of Rome as a tyrant.

‘My third authority is from Boccacio, who, in his book ‘de Casibus
virorum illustrium, s. lib. ii. cap. 15. contra filios tyrannorum,’ in
speaking of the tyrant, says, ‘Shall I call him king? shall I call him
prince? shall I preserve my allegiance to him? Oh no: he is an enemy to
the public welfare. May I employ conspiracies and open force against
him? It is very proper and necessary so to do,—for there is not a more
agreeable sacrifice than the blood of a tyrant, and it is insupportable
to receive blame for having done good.’

‘I come now to my three authorities from the civilians. As I am no
lawyer, it will suffice if I mention the judgments that have been given
without producing them; for in my life I never studied the canon nor
civil law more than two years, and twenty years have passed since that
time, so that what little I may have learnt I have quite forgotten since
the period of my studies.

‘The first authority of the civil law is, That any one may put to death
deserters from the laws of chivalry; and who can be a greater deserter
from chivalry than him who deserts the person of his king, the fountain
of chivalry, and without whom it cannot long exist?

‘Secondly, It is lawful for every one to kill thieves and robbers, who
infest forests and rob on the highways,—because they are particularly
the enemies of the public weal, and consequently plotting to destroy all
travellers: consequently, it is lawful to kill a tyrant, who is
continually practising against his king, the sovereign lord, and against
the public good.

‘Thirdly, If it be lawful for any one by the civil and imperial law to
put to death a thief found by night in a house, it is much more so to
slay a tyrant, who day and night devises the death of his sovereign
lord. This consequence clearly follows, and will be apparent to any man
of sound understanding, if he consider it, and the antecedent texts from
holy writ.

‘Before I touch on the three examples from the holy Scriptures, I wish
to reply to some objections that may be made to what I say, in arguing
thus: All murder is forbidden by every law, divine, natural, moral and
civil. Whatever may be said to the contrary, I shall prove it from
Scripture: ‘Non occides,’ in Joh. xx. is one of the divine commandments,
which forbids any kind of murder. That it is forbidden by the natural
law, I prove by this quotation,—‘Natura enim inter homines quandam
cognationem constituit qua hominem homini insidiari nefas est.’

‘I prove it forbidden by the moral law, from ‘Quia per id: hoc non
facias aliis quod tibi non vis fieri: alterum non lædere; jus suum
unicuique tribuere: hoc est morale, insuper et de naturali jure.’

‘That the civil and imperial laws forbid murder, those laws shall prove,
‘Qui hominem occidit capite puniatur, non habita differentia sexus vel
conditionis. Item omne bellum omnis usus armorum vitiosus præcipue
prohibitus est: nam qui vitio præcipue bellum gerit, læsæ majestatis
reus est. Item regis proprium furta cohibere, adulteria punire, ipsos de
terra perdere: qui enim talia sibi appropriat aut usurpat, principem
injuriatur et lædit: quoniam ut dicit lex judiciorum vigor: juris et
publica tutela in medio constituta est, ne quis de aliquo quantumcunque
sceleribus implicito assumere valeat ultionem.’

‘To reply to the above arguments: It should be known that theologians
and jurists use diversely this word _homicidium_; but, notwithstanding,
they agree in the same opinion respecting the thing. The theologians
say, that to kill a man lawfully is not homicide, for the word
_homicidium_ carries with it ‘quod sit justum propter hoc dicunt quod
Moyses, Phinees, et Mathathias non commiserunt homicidia quia juste
occiderunt;’ but some jurists say, that killing of a man, just or
unjust, is homicide,—while others deny it, saying there are two modes of
homicide, legal and illegal; and for justifiable homicide no man ought
to be punished.

‘I answer, therefore, with the theologians, that the killing of a tyrant
is not homicide, inasmuch as it is just and legal. According to the
general law, I confess it would be homicide; but if there be shewn
justifiable cause for it, no punishment, but remuneration, should
follow.

‘With regard to that part of the argument which says, ‘Quod hominem
homini insidiari nefas est, et quæ magis insidiatur homini,’ &c. it
alludes to a tyrant who is continually practising the death of his king
and sovereign lord. ‘Et homo est nefas, et perditio, et iniquitas.’ As
for him who slays a man, by watching a proper opportunity for it, to
save the life of his king, and preserve him from mortal peril, he does
no ‘nefas,’ but acquits himself of his duty toward his sovereign lord.
‘Et homo est nefas, et perditio, et iniquitas;’ and therefore he who
kills such an one, by watching a proper opportunity, does it to save the
life of his king.

‘In regard to that passage which says, ‘Non facias aliis, &c. alterum
non lædere,’ &c. I reply, that it makes against the tyrant, and in
favour of him who slays him; for he (the tyrant) does against his king
that which he would not have to be done against himself, ‘et ipsum regem
injuriatur et lædit.’ For which reason, he who has put to death such a
person, according to his deserts, has done nothing contrary to the laws,
but has preserved the meaning of them, namely, true equity and loyalty
towards his king and sovereign lord.

‘To the other quotation from the laws that says, ‘Hominem occidere,
capitale esse omnis usus armorum,’ &c. I answer, that there are no laws
nor usages so very general but that there may be some exceptions made
from them. I say, that the case of killing a tyrant is exempted, more
especially when he is guilty of the crimes before mentioned. How can any
greater cause of exemption be shewn than that, when the murder is done
through necessity, to save the king from being put to death?

‘Even when conspiracies against his royal person have been so far
carried by witchcraft and otherwise, that he is disabled from
administering justice; and the tyrant being found deserving of that
punishment, the king, from weakness of intellect, cannot, or will not,
punish him, the killing of him, in such cases, is not against the law,
properly speaking, for all laws have two meanings: the first is the
textual signification, the other is the ‘quo animo,’—the person
committing a crime has done it, and the law, as intended by those who
made it, is to be explained according to the intent of its framers, and
not always according to the literal sense.

‘Thus the philosopher brings forward the example of citizens who made a
law for the defence of their city, that no one, under pain of death,
should mount the ramparts, because their city was besieged; and they
were afraid, should strangers mount the walls with the inhabitants,
there might arise danger to them, from these strangers, at a proper
opportunity, joining their enemies, or at least making them signs to
show where they might the more easily attack the town.

‘It happened, that this town was attacked at several places,—when the
strangers and pilgrims who were within it, observing the enemy were much
superior to the inhabitants, armed themselves and mounted the walls at
the weaker parts, when they repulsed the enemy, and saved the town. The
philosopher then asks, Since these pilgrims have mounted the walls
contrary to the express words of the law, they have infringed it, and
should they not be punished? I say no; for although they have acted
contrary to the literal text of the law, they have not disobeyed the
spirit of it, which was the saving of the town,—for had they not mounted
the walls in its defence, it must have been taken.

‘As to the laws which declare, that none ought to administer justice but
the prince, nor do any deeds of arms without his licence,—I maintain,
that these laws were made for the preservation of the king’s honour and
person, and for the public good.

‘Should there exist a tyrant of great power and authority, who is
continually practising, by witchcraft and other means, the death of the
king, and to deprive him of his kingdom,—and should that king, from
weakness of intellect or want of force, be unable to punish him, and
should he permit him to go on in his wickedness,—I should disregard, in
this case, the law that forbids me to bear arms without the king’s
licence, or to take the authority into my own hands in a general sense
only. What have I to do with the literal sense of it? Am I to leave my
king in such peril? By no means. I am bound to defend my king, and put
to death the tyrant; for should I, by thus acting, do contrary to the
text of the law, I follow the spirit of it, and the object it was
directed to, namely, the preservation of the honour and life of my king;
and I should think myself more deserving of praise than if I had
suffered the tyrant to live on in his wickedness. I ought therefore to
be rewarded, and not punished, for having done a meritorious deed,
tending to a good purpose, for which end all laws were made.

‘St Paul says, ‘Littera occidit, charitas autem ædificat;’ which means,
that to follow the literal sense of the holy Scriptures is death to the
soul, but that we ought to obey the true meaning in all charity,—that is
to say, to mark and accomplish the end for which the divine laws were
made. Spiritual edification is a goodly thing.

‘Item, the laws divine, natural and human, give me authority for so
doing, and by so doing I am a minister of the divine law; and it is
plain, that the objections I have started, as probably to be made
against what I have said, are not of any weight.

‘I come now to my three instances from the holy Scriptures, to confirm
the truth of my third fact. In the first place, Moses, without any
authority whatever, slew the Egyptian who tyrannised over the
Israelites.

‘At this period, Moses had no authority to judge the people of Israel,
for this power was not given to him until forty years after the
perpetration of this act. Moses, however, was much praised for having
done it. ‘Ut patet auctoritate, Exodi ij. quia tanquam minister legis
hoc facit. Ita in proposito in hoc faciendo ego ero minister legis.’

‘The second instance is that of Phineas, who, without any orders, slew
the duke Zambry, as has been related. Phineas was not punished for this,
but on the contrary praised, and greatly requited in affection, honour
and riches. In the affection that God shewed him, greater than before.
In honour, ‘Quia reputatum est ei ad justiciam,’ &c. In riches, ‘Quia
per hoc acquisivit actum sacerdotii sempiternum non tantum pro se, sed
pro tota tribu sua.’

‘The third instance is that of St Michael the archangel, who, without
waiting for any commands from GOD, or others, but solely from his
natural love, killed the disloyal traitor to his God and Sovereign
Lord,—because Lucifer was conspiring to invade the sovereignty and
honour of GOD. St Michael was rewarded for his action in love, honour
and wealth. In love, in that GOD had a stronger affection for him than
any other, and confirmed him in his love and grace. In honour, ‘Quia
fecit eum militiæ cœlestis principum in æternum.’ That is to say, He
made him the prince of his angelic chivalry for ever. In wealth, for he
gave him riches and glory to his satisfaction: ‘Tantum quantum erat
capax, de quibus loquitur. O altitudo divitiarum sapientiæ et scientiæ
Dei, quam incomprehensibilia sunt judicia ejus, et investigabiles viæ
ejus.’ Ad. Rom. xi.

‘Thus my third fact has been proven by twelve reasons. The fourth is,
That it is more meritorious, honourable and legal, that a tyrant should
be slain by one of the king’s relations than by a stranger no way
connected with him by blood,—by a duke than by a count,—by a baron than
by a simple knight, and by a knight than by a common subject.

‘I thus prove my proposition. He who is related to the king has an
interest to guard his honour and life against every injurious attempt,
and is bounden so to do more than any stranger, and, in like manner,
descending from those of high rank to the common subject. Should he fail
in this his duty, the more deserving is he of punishment, while, on the
contrary, by performing it, he gains the greater honour and renown.
‘Item in hoc magis relucent amor et obedientia occisoris, vel occidere
præcipientis ad principem et dominum suum quia est magis honorabile si
fuerit præpotens dux vel comes. Item in hoc magis relucet potentia regis
quod est honorabile et quanto occisor vel dictæ occisionis præceptor non
fuerit vilior et potentior tanto magis,’ &c.

‘In regard to alliances, oaths, promises and confederations, made
between one knight and another, in whatever manner they be, should they
be intended to the prejudice of the prince or his children, or the
public welfare, no one is bound to keep them; for, in so doing, he would
act contrary to the laws, moral, natural and divine. I shall now prove
the truth of this: ‘Arguendo sic. Bonam æquitatem (dictamen rectaæ
rationis) et legem divinam boni principes in persona publica servare, et
utilitatem reipublicæ debent præferre, et præsupponere in omnibus
talibus promissionibus, juramentis, et confederationibus: immo
excipiuntur implicite secundum dictamen rectæ rationis: bonam æquitatem
et charitatis ordinem quia alias esset licitum non obedire principi immo
rebellare contra principes, quod est expresse contra sacram Scripturam
quæ sic dicit: ‘Obedite principibus vestris, licet etiam discolis et
alibi. Subjecti estote regi præcellenti, sive judicibus tanquam ab eo
missis ad vindictam malefactorum, laudem vero bonorum.’ 1 Pet. iij. ut
sup. allegatum est.

‘‘Ex illo arguitur sic. Quandocunque occurunt duæ obligationes ad
invicem contrariæ major tenenda est, et minor dissolvenda quantum adhoc,
sed in casu nostro concurrunt duæ obligationes. Et cum obligatio ad
principem sit major, et alia minor obligatio ad principem tenenda est,
et alia non in tali casu. Item arguendo eandem quæstionem, quandocunque
aliquis facit quod est melius quamvis juravit se id non facturum, non
est perjurium, sed perjurio contrarium: ut expresse ponit magister
sententiarum ultima dicti tertii: sed in casu nostro melius est tyrannum
in præfato casu occidere quamvis juravit se non occisurum quam presentem
vivere ut tactum est superius: ergo occidere tyrannum in præfato casu
quamvis juravit se non occisurum, non perjurium facit, sed perjurio
contrarium. Et consequenter Isidorus in libro de summo bono sic dicit:
id non est observandum sacramentum et juramentum quo malum incaute
remititur, sed in casu nostro male et incaute promititur. Sed non tenent
promissiones jurata vel confæderationes contra principem, uxorem
principis, liberos, vel reipublicæ utilitatem.’

‘Seventhly, If any of the above confederations and alliances should turn
out to the prejudice of the person so engaging, of his wife or his
children, he is not obliged to abide by them. ‘Patet hic veritas per
rationes tactas prius et cum hoc probatur sic, quia observare in illo
casu confæderationes contra legem charitatis qua quis magis sibiipsi,
uxori propriæ vel liberis quam posset obligari cuicunque alteri virtute
talis promissionis et omnia præcepta et consimilia in ordine ad
charitatem patent per apostolum sic dicentem. Finis præcepti est
charitas, quia in omnibus casibus et promissionibus intelligitur hoc, si
in fide observaverit juxta illud frangenti fidem, &c. Item,
subintelligitur si domino placuerit sed certum est quod non placeret Deo
cum foret contra legem charitatis, ideo,’ &c.

‘In regard to the seventh proposition, namely, that it is lawful and
meritorious for any subject to put to death a traitor that is disloyal
to his king, by waylaying him, and whether it be lawful for him to
dissemble his purposes,—I shall prove it first by the authority of that
moral philosopher Boccacio, already quoted, in his second book ‘De
Casibus Virorum illustrium,’ who, in speaking of a tyrant, says, ‘Shall
I honour him as prince? shall I preserve my faith to him as my lord? By
no means: he is an enemy, and I may employ arms and spies against him.’
This act of courage is holy and necessary; for there cannot be a more
agreeable sacrifice to God than the blood of a tyrant.

‘I prove this from holy writ, in the instance of Jehu: ‘Occident te
sacerdotes et cultores Baal, ut habetur primo reg. ex. ubi sic dicitur,
Jehu Acab parum coluit Baal, ego autem colam eum amplius. Et paululum
post; porro Jehu licet incidiose ut disperdat cultores Baal, dicit,
sanctificate diem solennem Baal, &c. et laudatur de hoc. Item de Athalia
regina vidente filium suum mortuum surrexit, et interfecit omne semen
regium, ut regnaret, et Joyadas summus sacerdos insidiose fecit eam
occidi. Et de hoc laudatur ut superius tactum est ad longum. Item,
Judith occidit Holofernem per insidias. Et etiam de hoc laudatur pater
familias quod ad zizaniæ eradicationem non voluit expectare tempus
messis ne triticum simul cum zizaniis eradicaretur, &c. Quod
intelligitur in occisione tyrannorum per insidias sed et bonam cautelam
et debet expectari loci et temporis opportunitas et expleri ne boni
eradicentur,’ &c.

‘This is the proper death for tyrants: they ought to be slain by
waylaying, or other means improper to be used toward good men; and for
this reason, we are bound, in many instances, to preserve our faith to
our capital enemy, but not to tyrants. As the reasons for this, urged by
doctors, are common, and of some length, I shall pass them over.


    ‘AS TO WITCHCRAFT.

‘Eighthly, Any subject and vassal who shall imagine and practise against
the health of his king and sovereign lord, to put him to death by a
languishing disorder, through covetousness to gain his crown and
kingdom,—any one who shall cause to be consecrated, or, more properly
speaking, to be directed against him swords, daggers, knives, golden
rods or rings, dedicated, by means of necromancy, to the devils, or
shall make invocations with characters, sorceries, charms, after having
thrust sharp instruments into the bodies of dead men hung on a gibbet,
and then into the mouths of such malefactors, leaving them there for the
space of several days, to the horror of all who detest these abominable
practices; and, beside these arts, shall wear near their bodies a piece
of cloth, containing the powder of some of the bones of malefactors,
sewed up, or tied, with the hair from the secret parts: I say, such as
shall commit any crimes similar to the above, are not only guilty of
human high treason, in the first degree, but are disloyal traitors to
God their Creator, and to their king.

‘As idolaters, and false to the catholic faith, they are worthy of the
double death, here and in the world to come, even when such sorceries
and witchcraft shall fail of their intended effect on the king’s person.
‘Quia dicit dominus Bonaventura, lib. ii. d. 6. Diabolus nunquam
satisfacit voluntati talium, nisi antequam infidelitas idolatriæ
immisceatur, sicut enim ad divina miracula plurimum facit fides, &c. Et
ideo experiencia de effectu prædictarum superstitionum secuta in
personam præfati regis probat clare ibi fuisse idolatriam et fidem
perversam. Item diabolus nihil faceret ad voluntatem talium in tali casu
nisi exhiberetur ei dominium quod multum affectat nec se exhibet ad
tales invocationes ipsis invocantibus eum, nisi ipsum adorent et
sacrificia et oblationes offerant, aut pacta cum ipsis dæmonibus
faciant. Item, doctor sanctus secunda secundæ in xi. articulo secundo
dicit quod tales invocationes nunquam sortiuntur effectum nisi fuerit
falsa corruptio fidei idolatria et pactio cum dæmonibus. Ejusdem
opinionis videtur esse Alexander de Hallis, Ricardus de Media-villa et
Astensis in summa. Et communiter omnes doctores qui de hac materia
locuti sunt, et sicut falsarii monetæ et pecuniarum regis,’ &c.

‘I thus perceive that all the doctors in theology agree in saying, that
such sorceries, charms and witchcraft can only succeed by the work of
the devil, or by his false means;—and that these sorceries, and suchlike
superstitions, have not of themselves the power of hurting any one, but
that the devils have the ability to injure any person so far only as
shall be permitted them by God.

‘The devils will not do any thing for those that call on them, unless
they perform three things, namely, pay them divine honour, which ought
solely to be paid to God, by offering them homage and adoration, proving
themselves false to the holy catholic faith,—and the doing of which
makes them guilty of the crime of high treason.

‘_Primum Corrolarium._ Should it happen, that for the circumstances
above stated, any of these invocators of the devil, idolaters, and
traitors to the king, should be confined in prison, and that during the
time that their process is carried to judgment, any accomplice of their
crimes should deliver or cause them to be delivered from prison, he
shall be punished just as these idolaters would have been, as guilty of
the crime of high treason in the first and fourth degree.

‘_Secundum Corrolarium._ If any subject who shall give, or promise to
give, a large sum of money to another for poisoning the king his
sovereign lord, and the bargain be proven and the poisons laid, although
they may fail to produce their effects, through the interference of the
providence of God or other means,—those who have committed this crime
are guilty of being traitors and disloyal to their sovereign, and shall
suffer the double death for high treason in the first degree.

‘_Tertium Corrolarium._ Any subject who, by treachery and hypocrisy,
shall during any mummeries, through malice aforethought, procure dresses
for his king, and, having clothed him in such dresses, shall cause them
to be set on fire, with the intent that the king his sovereign may be
burnt in them, so that he may obtain his kingdom, commits high treason
in the first degree, is a tyrant and disloyal to his king, and is
deserving of the double death, even should his sovereign escape, for the
noble and valiant persons who may have been burnt to death in exquisite
pain through his means.

‘_Quartum Corrolarium est_: When any subject and vassal to the king
shall make alliances with those who are mortal enemies to his sovereign
and kingdom, he cannot exculpate himself from being guilty of treason;
more especially when he shall send advice to the men at arms of the
enemy not to surrender any forts they may have gained in the
kingdom,—for that when he shall be employed against them he will afford
them succour. And beside, when he not only shall prevent the march of
any armies against such enemies, but shall encourage them by secret and
underhand means, he is a traitor to his king and country, and is
deserving of the double death.

‘_Quintum Corrolarium est_: If any subject or vassal shall, through
deceit and false information, sow the seeds of dissention between the
king and queen, by telling the latter that the king hates her so
mortally he is determined on having her and her children put to death,
and that she has no other remedy to prevent this but flying out of the
kingdom with her children; advising her strongly at the same time, to
put this plan into execution, and offering to conduct her out of the
realm to any castle she may please, adding with much subtilty, and by
way of caution, that the queen must keep this advice very secret, lest
she may be prevented from following it; and if, in order to accomplish
this plan, he propose to the queen that she should undertake different
pilgrimages until she be in a place of safety, intending by this means
to confine her and her children in some of his prisons, and to gloss it
over to the king, so that he may succeed him in his crown and kingdom.
Any subject guilty of such a crime commits high treason in the second,
third and fourth degrees. This is such an apparent truth that should I
wish to prove it, ‘esset adjuvare cœlum facibus.’

‘_Sextum Corrolarium est_: If any subject or vassal, through ambition to
obtain a crown and kingdom, shall visit the pope, and impose on him, by
imputing falsely and wickedly crimes and vices against his king and
sovereign lord, which would be blots in his royal issue, concluding
thence that such a king is unworthy to reign, and his children unfit to
succeed him, and requiring most urgently of the pope that he would issue
a declaration to the effect of depriving the king and his children of
the crown; and likewise declaring, that the kingdom had devolved to him
and his race, requesting that the pope would grant absolution to all the
vassals of the realm who should adhere to him, giving them a
dispensation for the oaths of fidelity that all subjects are obliged to
take to their king,—such as may commit the above crime are disloyal
traitors to their sovereign, and guilty of high treason in the first and
second degrees.

‘_Septimum Corrolarium est_: If any disloyal subject shall hinder
(‘animo deliberato’) the union of the church, and counteract the
conclusions formed by the king and clergy of this realm for the welfare
and security of the holy church, and shall use, among other means, that
of force, to induce the pope to incline to his iniquitous way of
thinking,—such subject is a traitor to his God, to the holy church, to
his king and sovereign lord, and ought to be reputed a schismatic and
obstinate heretic. He is worthy of the disgraceful death, insomuch that
the earth ought to open under him and swallow him up, like to Coran,
Nathan and Abiran, as we read in the Bible, ‘Aperta est terra sub
pedibus eorum, et aperiens os suum devoravit eos cum tabernaculis suis,
descenderuntque viri eorum in infernum operti humo.’ Num. xvi. Psal.
‘Aperta est terra et deglutivit Dathan,’ &c.

‘_Octavum Corrolarium est_: Any subject or vassal who shall, through
ambition to obtain the crown, practise the death of his sovereign and
his children by secret means, such as the poisoning their food, is
guilty of high treason in the first and third degrees.

‘_Nonum et ultimum Corrolarium est_: Every subject or vassal who shall
raise a body of men at arms, who do nothing but pillage and devour the
substance of the people, rob and murder whom they please, and force
women, and whose captains are posted in the strong places, castles,
passes, and fords and bridges of the said kingdom, and shall moreover
impose heavy taxes on the people under the pretext of carrying on the
war against a foreign enemy, and, when these taxes have been raised and
paid into the king’s treasury, shall seize on them by force, and
distribute the amount among the enemies and illwishers to the king and
kingdom, in order to strengthen himself that he may obtain his damnable
ends, namely, the crown and kingdom,—every subject who thus acts ought
to be punished as a false and disloyal traitor to the king and realm,
and as guilty of high treason in the first and fourth degrees, and
deserving of the double death.

‘Thus ends the first part of my justification of my good lord of
Burgundy.


    ‘SEQUITUR MINOR.

‘I come now to declare and prove my minor, in which I shall show, that
the late Louis duke of Orleans was devoured with covetousness of vain
honours and worldly riches: that to obtain for himself and his family
the kingdom and crown of France, by depriving our king of them, he
studied all sorts of sorcery and witchcraft, and practised various means
of destroying the person of the king, our sovereign lord, and his
children.

‘So greatly had ambition and covetousness, and the temptation of the
hellish adversary, possessed themselves of him that, as a tyrant to his
king and liege lord, he committed the crime of divine and human high
treason, in every manner and degree noticed in my major; that is to say,
in the first, second, third and fourth degrees.

‘In regard to the divine high treason, as that concerns the Sovereign
Judge in the heavens, I shall not lay any great stress upon this
article, but shall touch upon it incidentally, when I speak of human
high treason. I shall therefore enumerate, article by article, how he
has committed human high treason in the four degrees above stated, and
shall consequently divide my minor into four heads.

‘Respecting the first charge I make, of his having committed high
treason in the first degree,—that is, when the offence has been done
directly against the person of the king,—it may be done two ways: the
first by imagining and practising the death and destruction of the
prince, his sovereign lord, which may be divided into several heads, but
I shall content myself with three.

‘The first by practising the death of the prince by sorcery, charms and
witchcraft; the second, by poisons, venoms and intoxication; the third,
by killing or causing the prince to be killed by arms, water, fire, and
other violent injections.

‘That he is guilty of the first charge, I prove thus: To cause the king
our lord to die of a disorder so languishing, and so slow, that no one
should divine the cause of it,—by dint of money, he bribed four persons,
one of whom was an apostate monk, the others a knight, an esquire, and a
varlet, to whom he gave his own sword, his dagger and a ring, for them
to consecrate to, or, more properly speaking, to make use of, in the
name of the devils.

‘As suchlike sorceries can only be performed in solitude, and far from
the world, these persons took up their abode for many days in the tower
of Mont-Jay, near Laigny-sur-Marne. The aforesaid apostate monk, who was
the principal in this diabolical work, made there several invocations to
the devil, and at different times, the whole of which took place between
Easter and Ascension-day; and one grand invocation on a Sunday, very
early and before sun-rise, on a mountain near to the tower of Mont-jay.

‘The monk performed many superstitious acts near a bush, with
invocations to the devil; and while doing these, he stripped himself
naked to his shirt and kneeled down: he then stuck the points of the
sword and dagger into the ground, and placed the ring near them. Having
uttered many invocations to the devils, two of them appeared to him, in
the shape of two men, clothed in brownish green, one of whom was called
Hermias, and the other Estramain. He paid them such honours and
reverence as were due to God our Saviour, after which he withdrew behind
the bush.

‘The devil who had come for the ring took it and vanished; but he who
was come for the sword and dagger remained,—but afterward, having seized
them, he also vanished. The monk, shortly after, came to where the
devils had been, and found the sword and dagger lying flat on the
ground, the sword having the point broken,—but he saw the point among
some powder, where the devil had laid it. Having waited for half an
hour, the other devil returned, and gave him the ring, which to the
sight was of the colour of red, nearly scarlet, and said to him, ‘Thou
wilt put it into the mouth of a dead man, in the manner thou knowest,’
and then he vanished. The monk obeyed his instructions, thinking to burn
the king our lord,—but through the providence of God, and the aid of
those most excellent ladies the duchesses of Berry and Burgundy, who
were present, he escaped.

‘I shall next show that the duke of Orleans was guilty of the crime of
high treason in the first degree, by the alliances he contracted
contrary to the interest of the king and kingdom. It is a fact, that
when the king our lord and king Richard of England were firmly united in
friendship, by the marriage of Richard with the eldest princess of
France, king Richard would, at any risk, speak to the king our lord
respecting his health; and when they were together, he told him, that
the infirmity he was subject to was caused by means used by the dukes of
Orleans and of Milan, and entreated him, by the love of God, to be on
his guard against them.

‘The king, after this conversation, conceived so great a hatred against
the duke of Milan, and not without cause, that the herald who bore his
arms dared not appear in his presence. When this came to the ears of the
duke of Orleans, he took a mortal dislike to king Richard, and inquired
who was the greatest enemy he had in this world. He soon learnt that it
was Henry of Lancaster, to whom he made advances, and at length
concluded an alliance with him, in order to destroy the king, and to
strengthen himself as much as possible, to arrive at his damnable ends.

‘The duke of Orleans and Henry of Lancaster agreed mutually to labour
and assist each other to accomplish the deaths of the two kings, that
they might obtain the crowns of France and England,—that of France for
Louis d’Orleans, and that of England for Henry of Lancaster.

‘Henry succeeded in his attempt, but, thank God! the duke of Orleans has
failed. And to confirm the truth of this alliance, the duke of Orleans
has ever been favourable to the English, and has assisted Henry with all
his power, and particularly in regard to the siege of the castle of
Bordes, when he sent to the garrison not to surrender it to the French,
for that he would hinder the success of the siege, and afford them
sufficient succour when there should be need of it. He also prevented
many expeditions from taking place, which were intended against the
English.

‘Thus he proved himself a tyrant and disloyal to his prince and to the
welfare of the kingdom, and committed high treason of the first degree,
in a second manner. In confirmation of this, a fact has just struck me
which I will relate to you. At the time when king Richard was a
prisoner, and it was the intention of Henry to have him put to death,
some of the english lords said to him, that great danger might ensue
from the indignation of the French. Henry replied, they need not have
any fears on that head, for he had a powerful friend in France, to whom
he had allied himself, namely, the duke of Orleans, brother to the king,
who would not, for any attempt that might be made on king Richard,
suffer the French to attack the English; and to convince them, he made
them read the letters that had passed, and the articles of the treaty
concluded between them. It appears then, that the duke of Orleans has,
in various ways, committed high treason of the first degree.

‘I shall now finish this article of my minor, although there be many
other very horrible crimes perpetrated by the duke of Orleans of the
first degree of high treason, which my lord of Burgundy reserves to
charge him with at a proper opportunity, should there be a necessity for
it.

‘I proceed to the second article of my minor, wherein I shall charge the
duke of Orleans with being guilty of the crime of high treason, not only
in the first, but also in the second degree, which consists in offending
the king in the person of the queen his wife.

‘It is a fact, that about four years after the king was attacked by his
unfortunate disorder, the profligate duke of Orleans never ceased
imagining how he could succeed in his wicked and damnable designs, and
thought that if he could prevail on the queen to quit the kingdom with
her children, he would the more readily obtain his object. With this
intent, he falsely informed her, that the king was very indignant
against her,—and advised her, as she regarded her own life and the lives
of her children, to quit the presence of the king and to leave the
country.

‘He offered to conduct her and them to the duchy of Luxembourg (thinking
that when there he could do with them as he pleased), and promised the
queen that he would there safely guard her and her children. He added,
that should the king recover from his frenzy, and should he perceive
that he was no longer angry with her, and that she might safely return,
which he engaged to urge to the king with all his power, he would
re-conduct her and her children to his majesty. And in case the king
should not have changed his opinion concerning her, he would maintain
her according to her rank in the duchy of Luxembourg, were any of the
nobles, or even the king or others to visit her. The better to colour
his wicked designs, he gave the queen to understand that this project
must be kept secret, and executed with much caution, lest she and her
family should be stopped on the road to Luxembourg. He advised her to
undertake a pilgrimage with her children to St Fiacre, and thence to our
Lady at Liesse, whence he would escort her to Luxembourg, and give her
such an establishment as should be suitable for her and her children’s
rank, until the present dispositions of the king should be changed.

‘He frequently pressed the queen on this subject, using nearly the words
I have related, all tending to put the queen and her children in his
power to do with them as he pleased. They certainly were in great
danger,—and it would have increased, if some worthy persons, real
friends to the queen, had not informed her, that all she had heard was
false, which made her alter her intentions the moment she discovered the
wicked and damnable designs of the duke or Orleans. She determined, in
consequence, not to undertake this journey.—Thus concludes the second
article of my minor, which plainly proves the late duke of Orleans
guilty of high treason against the person of the queen of France.

‘I shall now show, that the duke of Orleans has been guilty of high
treason in the third degree, by three different crimes: the first, by
poisons and intoxications; the second, by fallacious deceptions; the
third, by his false representations to the pope.

‘In regard to my first charge, I declare the late duke of Orleans guilty
of intending the death of the late dauphin by means of a poisoned apple
which was given to a child, with orders to offer it to my lord the late
dauphin, and to none other, which was done. It chanced as he was
carrying this apple, he passed through the gardens of the hôtel de St
Pol, where he met the nurse to the children of the duke of Orleans,
carrying one of them in her arms. The apple seemed so beautiful that she
bade the child give it to her, that she might present it to the infant
she was carrying,—but he said he would not give it to any one but my
lord the dauphin. Seeing the boy so obstinate, the nurse took the apple
from him by force and gave it her child to eat, who soon after fell sick
and died.

‘I here ask one question. This innocent died of the poisoned apple:
ought the boy who brought it, or the nurse who gave it the child, be
punished? I reply, No, neither of them; but the crime must be attributed
to those who poisoned it, or caused it to be carried.

‘In regard to my second charge, of fallacious deceptions, I have already
touched upon them, in his treacherous conduct and advice to the queen,
to quit the kingdom for the duchy of Luxembourg.

‘As to my third charge, it is well known, that the duke of Orleans,
persevering in his wicked designs, has personally, and by ambassadors,
often practised with the pope to deprive the king of his crown and
kingdom. To succeed in this damnable conspiracy, he falsely and wickedly
charged the king with crimes affecting his royal progeny, which he gave
the pope to understand were such as required him to declare the king and
his posterity unworthy to hold or succeed to the crown of France. He
also requested the pope to grant absolution to all who should act
contrary to the oath of fidelity they had been constrained to take to
the king, and to declare the next of his blood the successor to the
crown and government of France.

‘The better to secure the pope in his interests, he has always favoured
and supported him by divers ways, as is apparent from his conduct, in
the cession and restitution of the monies from the hospital of Toulouse.

‘Thus the third article of my minor is made clear, notwithstanding there
are very many other horrible crimes of high treason in the third degree,
committed by the late duke of Orleans, unnoticed, which my lord of
Burgundy has reserved to himself, to bring forward or not as he may see
occasion.

‘I now come to the fourth article of my minor, which is, that the late
duke of Orleans, has been guilty of high treason in the fourth degree,
namely, of offending against the public welfare.

‘Although I have before noticed his alliance with the enemies of the
realm, which is acting positively against the public good, I shall show
how he has otherwise committed this crime. In the first place, by
keeping men at arms in different parts of the realm, who did nothing but
plunder the people, rob all travellers, and force women. He moreover,
placed their captains in the strongest castles, and at all the passes,
bridges and fords of rivers, the better to succeed in his wicked
designs, namely, the usurpation of the government.

‘Secondly, He has imposed intolerable taxes on the subjects of the
realm, pretending they were for the carrying on the war against the
enemy, but giving from their amount large sums to the illwishers to the
kingdom, to induce them to become his allies, and support him in his
attempt to seize the crown.

‘Thus it appears that I have proved the duke of Orleans guilty of high
treason in the fourth degree. There are beside many other facts more
wicked and criminal than I have stated; but my lord of Burgundy has
reserved them with others, to bring forward, if it be necessary, more
strongly to convict the duke of Orleans of having had the design of
compassing the king’s death, and the deaths of his royal family, that he
might obtain the crown.

‘Now, if my hearers will unite my minor with my major, it will clearly
follow, that my lord of Burgundy is not deserving of any blame whatever
for what has happened to the criminal duke of Orleans; nor ought the
king our lord to be dissatisfied with him, but, on the contrary, he
should be pleased with what he had done, and requite him for it in three
ways,—namely, in love, honour, and riches, after the example of the
rewards given to my lord the archangel St Michael, and to the valiant
man Phineas, which I have already mentioned in my major.

‘According to my plain understanding, I think our lord and king ought to
declare his attachment to my aforesaid lord of Burgundy, and publish his
good fame both within and without the kingdom, by his letters patent, in
the manner of epistles or otherwise; and God grant it may be so done,
‘Qui est benedictus in secula seculorum. Amen.’

After master John Petit had finished his harangue, he requested of the
duke of Burgundy that he would vouch for all he had said, which the duke
granted, and avowed the whole of what master John Petit had laid to the
charge of the late duke of Orleans, in the presence of the dauphin, who
represented the person of the king, and all the other princes and lords
before particularized. The orator, after this, declared that the duke of
Burgundy had reserved some charges of a deeper nature to lay before the
king personally, when a proper occasion should offer.

The assembly now broke up, and the princes and lords retired to their
different hôtels. The duke of Burgundy was escorted to his hôtel
d’Artois by a large body of men at arms and archers.

There were great murmurings in Paris among all ranks, for the assembly
had been open to all, respecting the charges made against the late duke
of Orleans, and various were the opinions concerning them. Those
attached to the Orleans-party declared they were all false, whilst the
Burgundians maintained the contrary.

Shortly afterward, queen Isabella of France, apprehensive of
consequences to herself and children, set out from Paris with her son
the duke of Acquitaine and the others, accompanied by Louis duke of
Bavaria, her brother, and fixed her residence in the castle of Melun.
The king, who had been very ill of his disorder for some time, now
recovered: the duke of Burgundy waited on him, and was not only
reconciled but obtained letters sealed with the king’s seal and signed
with his own hand, by which he was pardoned for what had lately happened
to the duke of Orleans, to the astonishment of many great lords and wise
men, but at this moment it could not be otherwise.



                               CHAP. XL.

    THE KING OF FRANCE SENDS A SOLEMN EMBASSY TO THE POPE.—THE
        ANSWER THEY RECEIVE.—THE POPE EXCOMMUNICATES THE KING
        AND HIS ADHERENTS.


About this period, some persons came to the king and the lords then at
Paris, to inform them, that the pope and his rival would neither of them
resign the popedom, as they had promised in the city of Savona,—but by
various deceitful means kept up the schism that had so long hurt the
true interests of the church. The king, in consequence, wrote letters to
the pope, and sent them by Jean de Château-morant and Jean de Coursen,
knights, his ambassadors, to declare, that if peace were not firmly
established throughout the Christian church by Ascension day next
ensuing, he himself and the clergy, nobles and people of his realm and
of Dauphiny, would no longer obey him or his adversary.

Pope Benedict was not well pleased with the contents of these letters,
nor with the embassy, although he dissembled with the ambassadors. He
made them a short answer, saying he would speedily reply to the letters
they had brought, after which they took leave of him and returned to
Paris, to make the king and council acquainted with all that had passed.
It was not long before a messenger from the pope arrived at Paris, who
went to the hôtel de St Pol, and, understanding the king was in his
oratory at the commencement of the mass, proceeded thither, and
presenting the king with an apostolical letter instantly departed.

When mass was over, the king caused the letter to be opened, and
deliberately read, by which he learnt that he himself and all his
subjects were excommunicated.

Search was instantly made in Paris after the person who had brought this
excommunication, but in vain, for he had quitted the city as secretly
and suddenly as he could. The king and his council, noticing the manner
and form of this act, in compliance with the exhortations of the
university of Paris, the greater part of his council, and the princes of
the blood, who were all much angered with the pope, he withdrew himself
from his obedience to the holy see.


    THE APOSTOLICAL LETTER RECEIVED BY THE KING.

‘Benedict, bishop and servant to the servants of God, to his very dear
son in JESUS CHRIST, Charles king of France, sends health and
apostolical benediction.

‘Would to God, very dear son, that thou knewest the love and affection
we bear to thy noble and potent person, and didst understand the purity
of our mind, thou wouldest then be sensible of the great joy we feel in
thy prosperity, and of our grief at any tribulations that befal thee. If
of this thou hadst knowledge, thou wouldest not listen to those
detractors, who by false tales endeavour to set thy heart against us,
but love us, as a son should love a father, and then the disturbances in
thy kingdom, raised up by thy persecutions against our holy church,
would cease.

‘Thou knowest well, glorious prince, and hast also heard from public
report, how constantly and diligently we have laboured to restore union
to the church; and the advances we have made, in order to obtain peace,
toward those who have foolishly encouraged the unfortunate schism, by
claiming the right of enjoying the holy see, and more particularly
toward Angelo Corrario, who calls himself Gregory, and is at present the
adversary to the church. He, however, refuses to perform the promises he
had made in various places to resign his pretensions, and prolongs the
division in the holy church under frivolous and false pretences. It is,
however, notorious, and cannot be denied, that it has not been owing to
any fault in us that peace has not been given to the church, and all
cause for schism annihilated.

‘Notwithstanding this, there are some, we hear, who are very busy in
their endeavours to defame us to thee, and to lessen, in as much as they
can, the purity of our good fame. Others, we learn, are weakening thy
devotion, and that of the princes of thy blood, by unjustly blaming us,
and charging us most falsely with want of diligence in re-establishing
the union of the holy church.

‘In truth, such persons should be answered by stating the real facts,
which would destroy their fictions and falsehoods; and we believe that
they have been the cause why we have not received any thing in our
treasury from thy kingdom for the space of two years, an edict having
been issued from thy court, which has deprived us of our rights, and we
are no longer obeyed in thy realm. We look, however, for consolation and
assistance from thee; for thy predecessors, in times past, have laboured
to destroy the schisms and errors in the church, and to preserve peace
and union. But some in thy kingdom have lately rebelled against the holy
see, by appealing from us, against the constitutions of the canon,—and
they have been permitted to spread abroad divers errors, contrary to the
purity of true religion.

‘In addition to what we have stated, we have been much hurt and affected
by the conduct of thy ambassadors in this town, and in our presence. Our
very dear sons Jean de Château-Morant and Jean de Coursen, noble men and
thy ambassadors, have come to us from thee, and brought us letters
sealed with thy seal, by which thou makest known to us, that if by the
feast of Ascension next coming, union be not established throughout our
holy church, and one pope or pastor of that church be elected, thyself,
the clergy, nobles and people of thy realm, and of the duchy of Guienne,
will observe a strict neutrality, and will not pay obedience to either
of the popes, nor wilt thou suffer thy subjects to pay any attention to
our mandates.

‘Thou mayest consider, very dear son, if we had not cause for grief at
heart, on reading these harsh expressions. They are little proofs of
that love a child owes a father, and have been followed by serious
consequences; for when thou and the princes of thy blood make use of
such expressions, others may carry their meaning to a farther extent,
and may include thee in the perdition that may befal them.

‘Thy good renown has been also wounded by the sin thou hast committed in
wishing to set bounds to divine mercy. The union thou thinkest to obtain
is sinful, and a perseverance in schism; for our adversary and his
followers, swollen up with pride, will not bend nor incline to peace,
but will acquire greater obstinacy from the hopes thy conduct will have
given them, that we shall be deprived of any power over thy subjects and
kingdom. Thus those who were dejected and in despair will, from our
oppressions, regain strength and courage.

‘Truly, most dear son, we to whom God has intrusted the care of his
people, cannot longer suffer such things as may be injurious to the
divine Majesty, and may cause the peril of souls, and tend to keep alive
the schism in the holy church, and to invalidate my election and
reputation.

‘We grieve much at thy deception, and at the wicked counsels thou hast
received,—and we exhort and entreat of thee, in the name of our blessed
Saviour, that thou wouldst not listen to such wicked men, who seek their
own profit from the losses of the church, and from the quarrels they may
excite in thy family.

‘With regard to our proceedings, thou hast had full knowledge of them,
from what we have written to thee on the subject. Consider, therefore,
coolly with thy council, the purity of our intentions: have the goodness
to revoke and annul all edicts that may be injurious to us and to the
church, and use thy endeavours to bring thine and all other kingdoms to
that obedience originally due to us. We also must tell thee, that we
will not act as thou hast written to us, for it does no honour to thy
excellent understanding.

‘If thou wilt obey the mandates and exhortations of thy father, thou
wilt gain great merit with God, and, by inclining thyself to the holy
apostolical see, much praise from man. Beloved son, be on thy guard
against deceivers. We will also, that thou shouldst know, and by these
presents do make known to thee, that beside the pains and punishments
pronounced by the law, we have lately made other constitutions, which we
send thee with our bull, by which thyself and all other such delinquents
and disobedient children (which God avert!) will be punished. We have
done this to preserve thee and other princes from the heinous offence of
high treason, so great is our paternal love toward thee and them, in
order that at the day of judgment we may be blameless, by endeavouring
to prevent, as much as in us lies, any soul from perishing.

‘Given at Porto Venere, in the diocese of Genoa, the 23d day of March,
in the 14th year of our papacy.’


    THE BULL OF THE POPE DELLA LUNA, BY WHICH HE EXCOMMUNICATES
        THE KING OF FRANCE AND OTHERS.

‘Benedict, bishop and servant of the servants of God, in perpetual
memory of the increase of wickedness among mankind,—We behold the world
daily becoming worse, and the thoughts of mankind so bent on evil that
they add crime to crime,—That the good who may be intermixed with the
bad may not be corrupted through malice and error, and that the boldness
and presumption of vice may be somewhat restrained by fear of
punishment.

‘It has come to our knowledge by public report, that certain children of
perdition, as well churchmen as seculars, who, ambitious of rising
higher than becomes them, may thence dangerously fall, having been
deceived by him who changes himself into the form of an angel of light
that he may afterward deceive others, have given great scandal to the
simple and weak, and much offence to those of firmer minds, from their
attempts to destroy and divide the catholic church by schism, and to
prevent the re-union of it, which was taking place when we were elected
sovereign and apostolical bishop.

‘Two years before this period, when we were of mature age[122], we
laboured hard to put an end to this schism, which has divided the church
of God for nearly thirty years, to the great grief of all sincere
Christians, and it still continues through the perverseness of man.

‘We have declared to Angelo Corrario, (who has thrust himself into the
apostolical chair, and is called by those under his obedience by the
name of Gregory,) the mode of renunciation frankly and sincerely offered
by us, and which in our apostolical letters, given at Marseilles the 2d
day of February of the aforesaid year of our papacy, is more fully
explained. We have again offered to Angelo Corrario to appear in person
at a proper and convenient place, that measures may be the more speedily
adopted for the success of so desirable an event as the re-union of the
holy church.

‘Notwithstanding this, the sons of iniquity exert all their powers, by
means of fraud and hypocrisy, to prevent us and our brother cardinals
from executing so salutary an object, despising the bonds of the holy
church, and pretending an ardent desire for its union, while they
wickedly withdraw themselves from its obedience, and in their defence
appealing from us, which, however, they have not the right to do.

‘We have patiently suffered all this, in the hope it may excite in them
repentance and a desire to return to their duty: nevertheless, they
persevere with greater boldness and presumption.

‘In order, therefore, to check this, we, having duly considered the
weightiness of the matter, do, according to the powers vested in us,
pronounce sentence of excommunication against all who knowingly shall
obstruct the union of the holy church, or shall impede ourself and our
venerable brethren the cardinals in the execution of the aforesaid
things offered by us, and agreed to by Angelo Corrario or his
ambassadors, or all who may appeal against us or our successors, bishops
of Rome, legally elected to that dignity, or whoever may countenance and
support such appeals, substractions or perturbations, under any pretence
or colour.

‘We likewise include in this our sentence those who may perversely
affirm they are not bound to obey our mandates, whatever may be their
rank, whether cardinal, patriarch, archbishop, bishop, or of imperial or
kingly dignity, and of whatever rank in church or state. From this
sentence none can be absolved but by the pope, excepting when in
‘articulo mortis.’ And should it happen that any may thus have received
absolution, and recover their health, we will and command, that
instantly on their recovery, they present themselves before the holy see
to receive absolution again, and to make such satisfaction as may appear
reasonable and conformable to justice.

‘Should this sentence be endured through obstinacy and hardness of heart
for the space of twenty days, by any one of any estate or degree above
mentioned, be the same a prince or other secular of any description
whatsoever, we subject him to the interdict of the church, with all the
lands, towns, cities and castles, and every sort of inheritance that may
belong to him. Universities continuing in the same perverseness shall be
also subject to this interdict of the holy church.

‘And as it has been found necessary, through the ingratitude of men,
sometimes to revoke benefices, all such and each of them, as well
churchmen as seculars, who shall give aid or counsel against this
sentence, and suffer it to remain for the space of twenty days, shall be
deprived of the benefit of all indulgences, privileges, and other graces
granted to them by the holy apostolic see. Such clerks will likewise be
deprived of all benefices and dignities in the church, whether with or
without cure; and should their rank be that of cardinals, patriarchs,
archbishops or bishops, or other dignities, we declare them, by full
authority and power vested in us, deprived of the same; and their
vassals or other dependants, who have been bound on oath to serve them,
we declare absolved from such oaths, and their fiefs, honours and
dependencies on the church, whether moveable or immoveable, shall revert
to the governors thereof, for them to dispose of according to their will
and pleasure.

‘No judicial hearing will be granted to the sinners and transgressors
above mentioned, and their suits, if proceeded on by public notaries,
will be null and void.

‘All persons who may aid and abet, openly or secretly, those who,
through perverseness of mind, shall resist this sentence, be they single
individuals, cities, castles or places, shall undergo the same
punishment of excommunication; and we will and command that the
penalties ordained by our predecessors for similar crimes shall have
their full effect and force, notwithstanding any constitutions,
ordinances, liberties, graces, or apostolical indulgences that may have
been formerly granted to these transgressors by us, or by our
predecessors the bishops of Rome,—all which we revoke, as being contrary
to the tenor of this present bull. It is unlawful, therefore, for any
person to oppose or infringe this our declaration, by any way or means
whatever; and should any dare attempt it, they shall know that they will
incur the indignation of an all-powerful God, and of his blessed
apostles St Peter and St Paul.

‘Given at St Victor de Marseilles, the 23d of March, in the 13th year of
our papacy.’



                             [A. D. 1408.]

                               CHAP. XLI.

    THE UNIVERSITY OF PARIS DECLARES AGAINST THE POPE DELLA
        LUNA, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE KING OF FRANCE.—KING LOUIS
        OF SICILY LEAVES PARIS.—OF THE BORGNE DE LA HEUSE.


At the beginning of this year, the university of Paris declared against
pope Benedict, in the manner following, by master Jean Courteheuse, a
native of Normandy. The assembly was held in the great hall of the
palace, in the presence of the kings of France and Sicily, the dukes of
Berry, Burgundy, Bar and Brabant,—the counts de Mortaign[123], de
Nevers, de St Pol, de Tancarville[124],—the rector of the university,
with deputies from that body,—the earl of Warwick from England,
ambassadors from Scotland and Wales, and a great multitude of clergy and
people of Paris.

Master Jean Courteheuse took his text from the 7th Psalm: ‘Convertetur
dolor in caput ejus, et in verticem ipsius iniquitas ejus descendet.’
Which is, For his travail shall come upon his own head, and his
wickedness shall fall on his own pate.

He divided his speech into six conclusions. First, That Pietro della
Luna was obstinately schismatic, not to say an heretic, a disturber of
the peace and union of the church.

Secondly, That the said Pietro ought not to bear the name of Benedict,
pope, cardinal, or any other title of dignity,—and that he ought not to
be obeyed as pastor of the church, under penalty of suffering the
sentences pronounced against those who favour schismatics.

Thirdly, That the provisions, sentences and declarations of the bull,
and the pains and penalties therein threatened, are of no value.

Fourthly, That the contents of the said bull and letter are wicked,
seditious, full of deceit, and tending to disturb the king’s peace.

Fifthly, That no one whatever may pay the smallest attention to them,
without being guilty of the crime of favouring schismatics.

Sixthly, That such as may favour or support their contents may be
lawfully proceeded against in the courts of justice.

After master Jean Courteheuse had made all his conclusions, he offered
certain requests on the part of the university of Paris to the king of
France. The first was, That great diligence should be used in searching
after copies of Pietro della Luna’s letter, and that all who might
conceal them should be punished according to their deserts; that many of
his supporters existed within the kingdom, whom the university would
denounce in due time and place.

The second request was, That henceforward neither the king nor any of
his realm would receive letters from Pietro della Luna.

The third, That the king would command his daughter the university to
preach the true doctrine throughout the kingdom.

The fourth, That the bishop of St Flour, who had been sent ambassador to
the aforesaid Pietro, should be arrested and imprisoned, together with
master Pierre de Courselles, Sansien le Leu, the dean of St Germain
d’Auxerre, and punished according to their demerits,—and that the bull
should be torn to pieces, as injurious and offensive to the royal
majesty.

The university declared, that it would proceed to greater objects
touching the faith, and demonstrate and explain these things before
those whom it might concern in proper time and place.

The king instantly assented to the requests made by the university; and
then the bull was torn in pieces by the rector of the university, in the
presence of the whole assembly. The dean of St Germain d’Auxerre, being
there, was arrested, and put into confinement.

Shortly after, the abbot of Saint Denis, master Jean de Sains, formerly
secretary to the king, and many others of name, were imprisoned at the
Louvre.

Such diligence was used that the king’s officers overtook the messenger
who had brought the bull at Lyons, and brought him back a prisoner to
Paris, with the aforesaid Sansien le Leu, who had been taken in the
church of Clervaulx; for the king and all the princes were very
indignant against the pope della Luna.

This pope, hearing how he had excited the anger of the king of France,
of the princes, and of the university of Paris, began to be much
alarmed, and, in consequence, embarked at Porto Venere, attended by four
cardinals only, and went first to Arragon, and thence to Perpignan.

About this time, king Louis of Sicily took leave of the king of France,
and left Paris for Provence, to oppose some who were favourable to his
adversary king Ladislaus. The queen of France was still at Melun,
whither the king went, and after some days stay returned to Paris, where
the ambassadors from Scotland were waiting for him. When they had
received a large sum of money from the king to carry on the war against
the English, they took leave and returned home.

The king of France also granted to the ambassadors from Wales, for the
same object, three hundred men at arms and two hundred cross-bows, to be
maintained at his expense for one whole year. They were to be commanded
by the borgne de la Heuse, a knight of great renown, and a native of
Normandy, to whom the king ordered vessels and money to be delivered,
that he might embark for Wales.



                              CHAP. XLII.

    THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY DEPARTS FROM PARIS, ON ACCOUNT OF THE
        AFFAIRS OF LIEGE.—THE KING OF SPAIN COMBATS THE SARACEN
        FLEET.—THE KING OF HUNGARY WRITES TO THE UNIVERSITY OF
        PARIS.


On the 5th day of July, the duke of Burgundy left Paris, attended by his
two brothers, to the great vexation of many princes, governors of the
realm. The object of his journey was to celebrate in Arras the birth-day
of the bishop of that city, whose name was Martin Porée, of the order of
Preachers, and also his confessor. He went thence to Ghent to visit his
duchess.

He made great preparations to march to the assistance of his
brother-in-law John of Bavaria, bishop of Liege, whom the Liegeois had
deprived of his bishoprick, and banished their country. He had taken
refuge with many gentlemen of his party in the town of Maestricht,
wherein he was besieged by his enemies under the command of the lord de
Pieruels and his son, whom the Liegeois had elected bishop in his stead.

On the other hand, duke William count of Hainault, brother to John of
Bavaria, the count de Conversent[125], lord of Anghien, and many other
great lords of the country, assembled a large body of men at arms, who,
when joined by the lords de Croy and de Hely with their men, sent by the
duke of Burgundy, amounted to a very considerable force.

They marched toward the country of Liege, to make war upon it, for the
cause before mentioned, and first burnt a house and farm belonging to a
church of the order of Cistercians. They then advanced to Fosse and
Florennes[126], where they committed much destruction by fire and sword,
as well as throughout the whole country on the banks of the Sambre. They
took several forts by storm, and put to death all found therein; nor
were the lives of any spared, of whatever sex or rank, in those parts.

On this expedition some new knights were made, among whom were Pierre de
Luxembourg count de Conversent, Engilbert d’Anghien, and many more. When
duke William had despoiled the country, suspecting the Liegeois would
march against him to offer battle, and knowing they were in superior
numbers, he retreated homeward, burning every house or village he
passed; and his men were loaded with the booty they had made.

When he was returned home, he raised another army in conjunction with
the duke of Burgundy, with the intent of marching again toward Liege and
offering battle to the Liegeois.

At this time, a severe war was carrying on between the Spaniards and the
Saracens of the kingdom of Granada. The king of Spain[127],
magnificently attended by his Spaniards, and sir Robinet de Braquemont,
a knight from Normandy, embarked on board twenty-four gallies, well
provided with men at arms and stores, to combat the Saracens, who were
at sea with twenty-two gallies. These last were defeated, and all on
board put to death.

At this period also the king of Hungary wrote to the university of Paris
a letter, the contents of which were as follows. It was addressed, ‘To
the learned, sage and prudent men, the rector and university of Paris,
our love and affection.’ Then follows the letter. ‘Noble personages, and
very renowned in science throughout the world, we have with pleasure
received your epistle, full of sense and eloquence, which no doubt will
be very agreeable to our Lord and the Holy Spirit, and most profitable
to all true Christians; for such is the abomination at present existing
in the church of God, that every sincere and pious Christian should
offer up his prayers to God that out of his grace he would provide a
remedy, by which this abomination, namely, the schism and division that
has existed in the church for thirty years may be destroyed, and put to
a final end by the re-union of the whole church.

‘Should not this union be speedily effected, it is to be feared, that
from this double division three others may spring up; and it is on this
account, and some others, we have sent our orator to that most Christian
prince the king of France our lord, in order that the object of our
legation to him may not be frustrated by unbelievers and others. We have
requested of him by our ambassadors to send us some one of his noble
race to aid and counsel us in our affairs, which we hope he will comply
with, knowing that, if he grants us this favour, we shall be alway
ready, as heretofore, to serve him.—Given at Rome, the 11th day of June,
in the 22d year of our reign.’



                              CHAP. XLIII.

    HOW ALL THE PRELATES AND CLERGY OF FRANCE WERE SUMMONED TO
        PARIS.—THE ARRIVAL OF THE QUEEN AND OF THE DUCHESS OF
        ORLEANS.


In these days, the prelates and clergy, or their procurators, were
summoned from the greater part of France and Dauphiny to attend the king
and his council, to give their opinions respecting an union of the
church, and other matters touching the person of the king and his realm.

They attended in great numbers, and on the vigil of the feast of St
Laurence assembled at eight o’clock in the morning in the great hall of
the palace. The chancellor of France presided for the king, who was
indisposed. When the mass of the Holy Ghost had been solemnly celebrated
by the archbishop of Toulouse, a very renowned doctor in theology, of
the order of Friars Preachers, harangued notably in the presence of the
dukes of Orleans, of Berry, and many great lords, the rector, the
university, and a large body of clergy.

He chose for his text, ‘Quæ pacis sunt sectemur, et quæ ædificationis
sunt invicem custodiamus,’ Rom. iv. c. That is to say, St Paul tells the
Romans, in the 4th chapter of his epistle to them, to follow the things
of peace, and be careful of what may bring edification. The doctor
harangued much respecting the union of the church, and uttered many
invectives against Pietro della Luna, who, he said, from first to last,
had opposed this so-much-to-be-desired union, and that he was a
schismatic-heretic, obstinate in his wickedness.

He proved this by six arguments; and after declaring that the king of
France had formerly been neuter, but had since withdrawn himself from
his obedience, on account of the letter and bull lately issued, which
was full of falsehoods and deceit, and highly offensive to the royal
majesty, he said that it was on this account the assembly was held, that
it might be notified to the members of it, for them to consider the
business, and on the means of obtaining a solid peace and re-union of
the church.

While these things were passing, master Sausien and the messenger from
Pietro della Luna, who had brought the letter and bull of
excommunication to the king, both of them Arragonians, with mitres on
their heads, and having surcoats emblazoned with the arms of Pietro
della Luna reversed, were carried most disgracefully in a dung cart from
the Louvre to the court of the palace; and shortly after, near the
marble table, at the end of the steps, were set on a pillory. They were
thus exhibited, for a very long time, to all who wished to see them,
having labels on the mitres, on which was written, ‘Disloyal traitors to
the church and king.’

They were then carried back in the aforesaid cart to the Louvre; and on
the morrow the assembly met again at the palace, when the chancellor of
France presided instead of the king.

A celebrated doctor in theology, called master Ursin Talvande, a native
of Normandy, harangued the assembly in the name of the university of
Paris, and took his text from the hundredth Psalm, ‘Fiat pax in virtute
tua.’ He addressed himself to the throne, and to the princes of the
blood and other nobles there present, exhorting them to attempt every
possible means to restore peace and union to the church, by putting an
end to the dangerous schism,—proving to them the wickedness of Pietro
della Luna, that he was an incorrigible heretic, and ought not to be
styled pope Benedict, nor enjoy the dignity of cardinal or any
other,—and that they were not bound to obey him, and indeed could not
without incurring the penalties due to favourers of heresy and
schismatics.

He brought forward many examples of former popes, which were favourable
to his arguments, and the determination of the last council, when it had
been resolved, that if Pietro della Luna and his adversary did not
establish peace within the church before Ascension-day, as they had
promised, the kingdom of France in general, and the inhabitants of
Dauphiny would withdraw themselves from his obedience; for such had been
the conclusion of the prelates who had attended this council, as was
apparent from their letters to the university of Paris,—in consequence
of which the aforesaid obedience had been withdrawn by order of the king
of France, until one properly-elected head of the church should be
chosen. The doctor then proposed the means for granting dispensations
and collations to benefices in the interim, as well for Dauphiny as for
France, and also other measures proper to be taken during this
neutrality.

It was at length concluded, that no one should obey either of the popes
after a certain day, under pain of suffering the before mentioned
penalties, and without incurring the indignation of the king. The doctor
insisted, that the bull of excommunication, and some letters which had
been brought from Toulouse, should be publicly destroyed, which was
done.

The prelates and clergy were then ordered to proclaim their neutrality
throughout their dioceses and parishes, and different documents were
given them by the university to teach them how they were to govern
themselves respecting the several points of this neutrality. When this
had been done, every one retired to his home.

On the morrow, the two Arragonians were again carried through Paris, and
pilloried, in the same manner as before. The queen, who had remained
some time at Melun, returned to Paris with her son the dauphin. He was
mounted on a white horse led by four footmen, and followed the car of
the queen. The dukes of Berry, of Brittany and Bourbon, the counts de
Mortaign, de Clermont, de Vendôme, and a numerous train of nobles, as
well churchmen as seculars, and esquires followed the dauphin. Great
rejoicings were made on their return by the Parisians, and carols were
sung in many of the streets.

The queen, the dauphin, and the lord Louis of Bavaria her brother, took
up their lodgings in the castle of the Louvre. On the morrow, the
duchess-dowager of Orleans came likewise to Paris with her
daughter-in-law Isabella, eldest daughter to the king of France,
accompanied by many noble persons, knights and others, dressed in
mourning. All the before-mentioned princes went out of Paris to meet
them, and conducted them to the queen and the duke of Acquitaine, to
request of them justice and reparation for the melancholy death of the
late duke of Orleans, and also permission to make a reply to charges
which John duke of Burgundy had publicly brought against her late lord
and husband the deceased duke of Orleans,—which last request she at
length obtained.



                              CHAP. XLIV.

    THE DUCHESS-DOWAGER OF ORLEANS AND HER SON CAUSE A PUBLIC
        ANSWER TO BE MADE, AT PARIS, TO THE CHARGES OF THE DUKE
        OF BURGUNDY AGAINST THE LATE DUKE OF ORLEANS, AND
        CHALLENGE THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY FOR HIS MURDER.


Eight days after, the duke of Orleans, attended by about three hundred
men at arms, came to Paris. He was met by the duke of Berry and other
great lords, his relations, without the gate of St Antoine, and went to
wait on the queen and the duke of Acquitaine, his cousin-german, at the
castle of the Louvre.

Having strongly recommended his cause to them, he took leave and
hastened to visit the duchess his mother, and his wife. They were
incessant in their petitions to the king and council to do them justice
on John duke of Burgundy and his accomplices for the murder of the duke
of Orleans, and obtained leave to make any reply they might please
against the duke of Burgundy.

In consequence, the duke of Acquitaine, as representative of his father,
and the queen, both dressed in royal robes, went, by command of the
king, to the great hall of the Louvre, where were present the dukes of
Berry, of Brittany, of Bourbon, the counts d’Alençon, de Clermont, de
Mortaign, de Vendôme, and many more lords of the council; with numbers
of knights, the rector of the university of Paris, and great crowds of
common people. The duchess-dowager, attended by her son the duke of
Orleans, master Pierre l’Orfevre, his chancellor, master Pierre
Cousinet, advocate in parliament, and by a large train of friends and
familiars, entered the hall. She then caused to be read aloud by the
abbot of Saint Fiacre, of the order of St Benedict, the contents of a
book, written in French, which she gave to him publicly, and which were
confirmed by quotations from the writings of the prophets, in both the
Old and New Testaments, as well as from those of philosophers and
historians. The contents of the book were as follows.

‘Most Christian king, most noble and sovereign prince, and fountain of
justice, to thee do I address my speech; for thou art competent to
display justice to all thy subjects of the realm of France, inasmuch as
not only the neighbouring, but even the most distant nations may take
example from the conscientiousness of thy judgments, which flow from
thee and thy council, as from the fountains of justice and truth. I
address myself to thee in the names of my highly honoured and most noble
lady the duchess of Orleans and of my lords her children, who in their
deplorable state present to thee their complaints with lamentations and
tears, seeing that after God there can be no relief but in thy pity and
compassion.

‘That what I have to say may not have the smallest appearance of
fallacy, but may be perfectly clear, I shall divide my discourse into
three parts, or principal divisions. In the first, I shall show, to the
utmost of my ability, that kings, as sovereigns, are bounden to do
justice to all their subjects, and to maintain peace within their
realms.

‘Secondly, That our adversary, John duke of Burgundy, and his abettors,
have, by counsel and otherwise, been instrumental in unjustly and
disgracefully murdering the late duke of Orleans, whose soul may God
receive!

‘Thirdly, That my aforesaid lord, the late duke of Orleans, has been
wickedly and unjustly accused of several crimes of high treason of which
he has been no way guilty, as shall appear hereafter.

‘It is, beside, my intention to divide these three points into six other
divisions: thus, therefore, my discourse will consist of eighteen
divisions.

‘In regard to the first point, it appears very clear to me, that the
king is singularly obliged to do justice in this case, and especially
for six reasons. The first of which constrains him to do justice from
the consideration of his power and dignity, which not only binds him to
do it of his own will, but as matter of right from his title of office;
for kings are so called on account of doing justice, and not for
anything else.

‘The second reason is founded on his paternal love,—for, as the common
proverb says, ‘Nature cannot belie herself:’ the king, therefore, as
sovereign and brother, is bound from reason and justice to support his
right.

‘Thirdly, From the melancholy state of my lady of Orleans, now reduced
to widowhood and despair, who with her disconsolate young children, and
many knights, are overwhelmed with grief by the cruel death of her lord
and husband.

‘The fourth reason is, The enormity of the crime, which can scarcely
have its parallel found; for all who have heard of this scandalous deed
have thought it abominable, and have declared, that if the king did not
provide a remedy for it, he could not be considered as sovereign of his
kingdom when he is thus forced to humiliate himself before his subjects.

‘Fifthly, If this crime be not punished, innumerable evils will
ensue,—such as the destruction of cities and towns, murders, and
rebellion of subjects.

‘Sixthly, The wickedness of our enemy, who by force of arms seeks to
maintain his crime, and who pleads his cause with a drawn sword in his
hand. And in these six reasons consist the grounds of our proceedings.

‘With respect to my second point, I will demonstrate by six reasons,
that our adverse party has so greatly sinned that it is impossible for
any reparation to make amends.

‘My first reason is, That our opponent had no authority whatever for
murdering so great and so noble a person as the late duke of Orleans.

‘Secondly, That he followed no forms of law or justice in putting my
late lord to such a death; and even supposing that he had any authority
over him, which was not the case, it was illegal to put him to death
without hearing what he might have to say in his own defence; and seeing
that he had not any authority, his crime will appear so much the deeper.

‘Thirdly, From the alliances formed between these two dukes, I do not
mean those of blood, but the engagements mutually entered into, to avoid
the inconveniences that might arise from their quarrels, by which they
were bounden not to annoy or attack each other without having sent a
previous challenge. In confirmation of this, they had several times
sworn to the same on the holy Scriptures, and on the cross of our Lord,
giving to each other letters signed with their seals.

‘Fourthly, The death of my said lord of Orleans was so sudden that no
true Christian can say it was not damnable to those who committed the
crime, as well as to those who had commanded it.

‘Fifthly, I shall demonstrate clearly, that our opponent did not cause
the late duke of Orleans to be murdered for any good purpose, nor for
the public welfare, but solely through ambition and covetousness, from a
lust of power, and in order to make his dependants rich, and from the
great hatred that had been long fostered at his heart.

‘Sixthly, That the death of the late duke of Orleans was not sufficient
for our adversary, but that he has exerted himself to the utmost to
blast and scandalize his memory by defamatory libels, and by supporting
traitors and murderers. This regards the second part of my discourse.

‘In respect to my third point, I shall produce six arguments, in
opposition to the six false accusations brought by our adversary against
the late duke of Orleans, and which shall clearly prove the innocence of
the defunct. Such will be my third division.

‘I have thus shown you my three divisions. The first regards
justice,—the second declares the malice of our adversaries,—and the
third exonerates the late duke of Orleans from the false charges brought
against him. Before I proceed further, I must here solemnly declare,
that I intend not to say any thing but the exact truth, or to advance
more than has been enjoined me by my foresaid lady of Orleans, and my
lords her children.

‘It is true, indeed, that the defender of our adversary has very
unadvisedly called my late lord of Orleans criminal, although he has no
way proven it; nevertheless I shall not use this expression in speaking
of our adversary, though I repute all murderers criminal, and him in
particular, not from any suspicion, but from the confession made by
himself; and as wisdom conquers malice, according to the holy
Scriptures, it will be sufficient for me to name the adverse party, the
party of Burgundy; for it will be better that I first demonstrate the
crimes, and then show the duke of Burgundy guilty of them, than to
follow his example, and call him criminal without any proof or
verification. I shall now, having divided my subject into three
divisions, enter on my first point, which treats of the justice of the
king, and quote the words of the prophet which say, ‘Justitia et
judicium præparatio sedis tuæ.’ These words are in the lxxviiith Psalm,
and declare to the king that his throne is founded on justice and
judgment. I shall quote in regard to my second division, which relates
to the malice of our adversary, the very words his defender made use of,
namely, ‘Radix omnium malorum cupiditas, quam quidem appetentes
erraverunt a fide.’ These words are taken from the first epistle of St
Paul to Timothy, in the last chapter, and which mean, That covetousness
is the root of all evil, and causes a defalcation from the faith.

‘In regard to my third division, respecting the innocence of the late
duke of Orleans, I shall use the words of the Psalmist in the seventh
Psalm, ‘Judica me secundum justitiam tuam et secundum innocentiam meam
super me;’ that is to say, Do me right according to thy justice, and
judge me according to my innocence.

‘I shall now return to my first point, and repeat the words of the
Psalmist, ‘Justitia et judicium præparatio sedis tua.’ This expression I
may address personally to the king our lord, in saying, ‘Justice and
judgment are the foundations of thy royal throne;’ for royalty without
justice is undeserving of the name, and should be called a robbery
according to St Austin, in the 10th chapter of his 9th book, ‘De
Civitate Dei:’ ‘Regna, inquit, remota a justitia, quid sint nisi magna
latrocinia.’

‘It appears, therefore, that the king is bound to do justice to all his
subjects, and to preserve to every one his right, and that for the six
reasons touched upon at the beginning of my speech,—my first reason
being founded on the regard due to the royal dignity, which dignity has
been instituted principally in order to do justice, the king being
truly, in respect to his subjects, what a shepherd is to his flock, as
Aristotle says in his 8th chapter of ethics, or in the 5th of his
politics, on the government of cities; and it is also declared, in his
book on the ruling of princes, that they are bounden to preserve
justice.

‘‘Justitia inquit regnantis utilior est subditis quam fertilitas
ipsius;’ which means, That the justice of the governing powers is more
advantageous to the subject than fertility or riches. The Psalmist, on
this matter, says, ‘Honor inquit regis judicium diligit;’ that is, The
honour of the king loves justice and judgment. The justice here spoken
of is nothing else than to preserve to every one his right, which is
also declared by the emperor Justinian, in the first book of his
Constitutions.

‘‘Justitia est constans voluntas unicuique jus suum tribuens,’ meaning,
That justice is firm and stable, giving to every one his due; and it
should be considered that justice is not to be administered according to
pleasure, but as the written laws prescribe. Weigh well, therefore, how
much you are bounden to do justice.

‘To you, then, my lady of Orleans and her children address themselves,
requiring from you justice, which is the brightest jewel in your crown.
Recollect the numerous examples of kings, your predecessors, who so much
loved justice, and particularly that bright instance of a king, who
seeing that his son had deserved, by the laws of that time, to lose both
his eyes, ordered one of his eyes to be put out, and had at the same
time one of his own destroyed, that the law might not be violated nor
infringed.

‘Valerius also mentions, in his 6th book, a king called Cambyses, who
commanded a false judge to be flayed, and his skin to be placed on the
judge’s seat, and then ordered the son of the late judge to sit on the
skin of his father, telling him, ‘When thou judgest any cause, let what
I have done to thy father be an example to thee; and let his skin,
forming thy seat, always keep thee in remembrance.’

‘O, king of France! thou rememberest what David said, when king Saul
unjustly persecuted him, ‘Dominus inquit retribuet unicuique secundum
justitiam tuam;’ that is to say, The Lord God will repay every one
according to his justice. These words are written in the second chapter
of the first book of Kings.

‘Thou oughtest, therefore, like a true follower of our lord, to do in
like manner according to thy power, and aid and support such as have
been unjustly wounded and persecuted. Thou canst not have forgotten, how
Andronicus, a cruel murderer, was condemned to death on the spot where
he had slain the high priest, as it is written in the book of Machabees.

‘O, king of France! take example from king Darius, who caused those that
had falsely accused the prophet Daniel to be thrown into the lion’s den
to be devoured. Recollect the justice that was executed on the two
elders who, from false charges, had accused and condemned Susanna. These
examples are written in the sixth and fourteenth chapters of the book of
Daniel the prophet, and ought to stimulate thee to do justice as king
and sovereign,—for it is in doing thus that thy subjects will be
obedient to thee, and in such wise art thou bound to do them justice,
and which will cause them to be highly criminal when disobedient to
thee.

‘Some indeed have doubted whether the subject may not withdraw his
allegiance from the sovereign on a refusal of justice and equity. May it
please thee, therefore, sire, to consider this well, for thou wilt not
have any thing to fear in doing justice, as I shall hereafter
demonstrate; and in conclusion of this my first reason, I shall quote
the words of the third chapter of Job: ‘Cum justitia indutus sum, et
vestivi me vestimento et diademate in coronatione mea;’ that is to say,
I am clothed with justice, and have invested myself with it, as the robe
and diadem of my coronation.

‘Consequently, most noble prince, I say that fraternal love ought
greatly to urge thee to do justice; for I do not believe that greater
love ever existed between two brothers than what you both felt. Be then
the true friend to thy brother in justice and judgment; for it will be
the greatest disgrace to thee and to the crown of France, throughout the
world, if justice and reparation be not made for the infamous and cruel
murder of thy brother. It is now time for thee to show thy brotherly
affection; and be not like to those friends spoken of by the wise man,
in the 8th chapter of Ecclesiasticus, as follows: ‘Est amicus socius
mensæ et non permanebit in die necessitatis.’ That is, There are friends
who are companions at table, and in prosperity, but who are no longer
such in the day of adversity.

‘At this moment, necessity and affection united call upon thee to prove
thyself such a friend that the world may not call thee a faint hearted
friend, of whom Aristotle speaks, in his 9th chapter of ethics: ‘Qui,
inquit, fingit se esse amicum, et non est; pejor est eo qui facit falsam
monetam.’ A faint friend is worse than a coiner of base money. Should
some tell thee, that our opponent is of thy blood, and thy relation,
thou oughtest, nevertheless, to abominate his crime, and do strict
justice between two friends, according to what Aristotle says, in his
second book of ethics: ‘Duobus existentibus amicis, sanctum est
præhonorare virtutem.’—That is, It is praiseworthy to give the
preference to virtue between two friends.

‘Thou rememberest the strong love that subsisted between thee and thy
brother; not that I wish to obtain any favour by that remembrance, but
solely to exhort thee to justice and truth. Alas! it would be of little
value the being son or brother to a king, if such a cruel murder were
passed over without any punishment inflicted on the guilty, nor any
reparation made for it,—more especially as he who caused his death ought
to have loved him as a brother; for in the holy Scriptures nephews and
cousins-german are called brothers, as appears from the book of Genesis,
where Abraham says to his nephew Lot, ‘Ne sit jurgium inter te et me,
fratres enim sumus.’ Let there be no strife between thee and me, for we
are brothers.

‘Saint James is also called the brother of our Lord, when they were only
cousins-german. Thou mayest repeat to our adversary the words which God
said to Cain, after he had murdered his brother, ‘Vox sanguinis fratris
tui clamat ad me de terra.’ The voice of thy brother’s blood cries to me
from the earth; and certainly in our case the earth and blood do cry.

‘There cannot be a man of common feelings who has not compassion for
such a death as that of my late lord of Orleans; and it must not be
wondered at if I compare our adversary to Cain, for in them I see many
features of resemblance. Cain, moved by envy, slew his brother, because
the Lord had accepted of his brother’s offerings, and had not received
his sacrifice, because he was practising in his heart how he could kill
his brother. In like manner, the duke of Burgundy, because my lord of
Orleans was the more agreeable to the king, in his heart meditated his
death, and in the end had him treacherously and infamously murdered, as
shall be fully proven. As Cain, instigated by covetousness, committed
his crime, so our adversary, urged on by similar passions, did the act
we complain of, as shall be demonstrated from his conduct previous to
and after the death of the late duke of Orleans. I find, likewise, that
the word _Cain_, by interpretation, signifies, ‘acquired’ or
‘acquisition.’ By the same name our adverse party may be called, for
vengeance is acquired by the king in body and goods; but let justice
take its course, and events will happen according to the good pleasure
of God. It therefore seems very reasonable that I compare the duke of
Burgundy to Cain.

‘Sire, remember, I pray thee, the words addressed to Cain, namely, ‘Vox
sanguinis:’ The voice of thy brother’s blood. It is the voice of the
lady of Orleans, and of her children, crying to thee, and demanding
justice. Alas! my lord king, to whom wouldst thou wish to do justice, if
thou refusest to do it for the love of thy own brother? If thou be not a
friend to thy blood, to whom wouldst thou be a friend, seeing we ask no
more than justice? O, most noble prince, consider that thy brother has
been torn from thee for ever! Thou wilt never again see him, for the
duke of Burgundy has cruelly caused him to be put to death.

‘Recollect he was thy brother, and thou wilt find how greatly he is to
be compassioned. He, like thee, was equally fond of the queen and thy
children, and, from his natural good sense, honoured all the royal blood
of France; and few could be found more eloquent than he was when
addressing nobles, clergy or laymen.

‘Our Lord had given him what king Solomon had demanded, prudence and
wisdom; for every one knows, that he was adorned with an excellent
understanding,—and of him may be said as of David, in the chapter of the
Acts of the Apostles,—‘Sapiebat sicut angelus Domini.’ He was endowed
with wisdom like to an angel of God.

‘Were I to speak of the beauty of his person, I could only say, that he
was thy image and resemblance, with this good quality that he was
perfectly courteous to all, and never caused any one to be beaten, or
put to death, nor did he ever procure the death of any one. He
possessed, however, the power of so doing, even to his enemies, who were
notoriously defaming him, and attributing to him evils which he never
thought of: he could, more especially, have had our adversary put to
death several times, had he so pleased,—for no great power is requisite
to have any one treacherously murdered.

‘But, in good truth, such thoughts were not in his heart; for the
property of royal blood is to have such compassion and mercy that it
cannot suffer any cruelty, murder or treason whatever; and of this blood
my late lord of Orleans had a large share, for he was the son of a king
and queen.

‘O, king Charles! if thou wert now alive, what wouldst thou say? What
tears could appease thee? What would have hindered thee from doing
justice for so base a murder? Alas! how hast thou loved, and to what
honour hast thou diligently trained the tree that has brought forth the
fruit which has put to death thy very dear son? Alas! king Charles, thou
mayest now say with Jacob, ‘Fera pessima devoravit filium meum.’ The
worst of beasts has devoured my son.

‘Our adversary has made a miserable return to thee, oh Charles! for all
the great riches thou hast heaped on his father. This is the gratitude
for the expedition to Flanders, wherein thou and thy kingdom were in
such peril out of love to him. In truth, all the magnificent gifts thou
madest the father are already forgotten. Sire, look down, and hear the
lady of Orleans, crying in the words of the Psalmist, ‘Domine deduc me
in justitia tua propter inimicos meos.’ Lord, lead me to thy judgment on
account of mine enemies.

‘This concludes my second argument. My third is founded on pity,
considering the desolate state of the supplicants, namely, the widowed
lady of Orleans, in despair, with her innocent children, thy nephews,
now become orphans, having no other father to look to but thee. It
becomes thee, therefore, to incline thyself diligently to do them
justice, as they have no other refuge but in thee, who art their lord
and sovereign; and they are beside thy very near relations, as thou well
knowest.

‘Let pity move thy breast; for as Saint James the apostle says, ‘Religio
munda et immaculata est visitare pupillos et viduas in tribulatione
eorum.’ To visit orphans and widows in their distress is the duty of a
pure and undefiled religion. It is melancholy that so great a lady
should suffer thus undeservedly; and she may be compared to her whom
Valerius speaks of in the sixth book. A widow had a son who had been
unjustly slain: she went to the emperor Octavian to demand justice, and
said, ‘Sire, do me justice for the cruel death of my son.’ The emperor
had already mounted his horse, to perform a long journey, but replied,
‘Woman, wait until I be returned, when I will do thee justice.’ The
woman answered instantly, ‘Alas! my lord, thou knowest not if ever thou
shalt return, and I wish not justice to be delayed.’ The emperor said,
‘Should I not return, my successor will see thee righted;’ but the widow
replied, ‘Sire, thou knowest not if thy successor would wish to see me
righted: he may, perhaps, have something to prevent it like to thee; and
supposing that he should do me justice, what honour would it be to thee,
or what merit canst thou claim for it from the gods? Thou art bound to
do me justice: wherefore then seekest thou to throw the burden on
others?’

‘The emperor, observing the firmness of the woman and the reasonableness
of her arguments, dismounted, and, without more delay, did her ample
justice. It was for this meritorious conduct, that when the emperor
died, five years after, in the pagan faith, he was brought to life again
by the prayers of St Gregory, then pope, and baptised, as the histories
relate.

‘The example of this emperor, O king of France! thou oughtest to follow
in regard to the disconsolate widow of the late duke of Orleans, who is
now a supplicant to thee, and has formerly demanded, and now again
demands justice, for the inhuman and barbarous murder of her lord and
husband, who was thy brother. Delays, or reference to thy successors,
will have no avail; for thou, as king, art singularly obliged to do
this, considering the rank of the supplicants, the duchess of Orleans
and her children.

‘This lady is like to the widow of whom St Jerome speaks, in his second
book against Jovinian, wherein he relates, that the daughter of Cato,
after the death of her husband, was in the deepest sorrow, uttering
nothing but groans and lamentations. Her relations and neighbours asked
her how long this grief was to last,—when she replied, that her life and
her sorrow would end together. Such, without doubt, is the state of my
lady the duchess,—for she can have no remedy for her loss but by means
of the justice she is soliciting. In truth, she does not require any
hostile measures,—for were that the case, she and her children, with
their allies, are so much more powerful than the duke of Burgundy that
they are well able to avenge themselves.

‘This act of justice thou canst not refuse, nor can the adverse party
raise any objections to it, considering the persons who demand it. O,
sovereign king! act in such wise that the words the Psalmist spoke of
the Lord may be applied to thee: ‘Justus Dominus et justitias dilexit,
æquitatem vidit vultus ejus.’ Our Lord is judgment, and loves justice:
equity is the light of his countenance.—This concludes my third
argument.

‘My fourth argument is founded partly on the act itself, which was so
abominably cruel, the like was never seen; and all men of understanding
must feel compassion for it. This, if duly considered, should incline
thee the more to do justice, from the usages of the ancient kings, who,
through compassion, bewailed even the death of an enemy: how much the
more then does it become thee to bewail the death of thy brother, and to
exert thy courage to punish the authors of it? Should it not be so,
great disgrace will attach to thee and to many others.

‘We read, that Cæsar seeing the head of his enemy Pompey wept, and said,
that such a man ought not to have died. He was also very much grieved at
the death of Cato, though his enemy, and did all in his power to aid and
console his children. O, most courteous king of France! thou oughtest
likewise to give consolation for the death of thy brother, who was thy
dear and loyal friend. Weigh well the manner of his death, which was
piteously lamentable. Alas! my lord, could the spirit of thy brother
speak, what would it not say? It would certainly address thee in words
similar to these:

‘Oh, my lord and brother, see how through thee I have received my
death,—for it was on account of the great affection that subsisted
between us! Look at my wounds, five of which are mortal. See my body
beat to the ground, and covered with mud! behold my arm cut off, and my
brains scattered about! See if any pains were equal to my sufferings. It
was not, alas! sufficient for mine enemy to take away my life so
cruelly, and without cause; but he suddenly surprised me when coming
from the residence of the queen to thee, which has put me in danger of
damnation; and even after my death, he has attempted to blast my
reputation by his false and defamatory libel.

‘My sovereign king, attend to these words as if thy brother had spoken
them; for such they would have been, could he have addressed thee. Be
then more active to do justice; and having heard the petition of my lady
of Orleans, act so that thou mayest verify what is said in the second
chapter of the first book of Kings: ‘Dominus retribuet unicuique
secundum justitiam suam.’ Our Lord will render to all according to his
justice. And this concludes my fourth argument.

‘My fifth is grounded on the great evils and mischiefs that might ensue
if justice be not done on such crimes,—for every one will in future take
the law into his own hand, and be judge and party. Treasons and murders
will be the consequence, by which the kingdom may be ruined, as I shall
demonstrate; for, according to the doctors, the surest way to preserve
peace in a country is to do equal justice to all. St Cyprian declares
this, in his book on the twelve errors, saying, ‘Justitia regis, pax
populorum, tutamen pueris, munimentum gentis, terræ fœcunditas, solatium
pauperum, hereditas filiorum, et sibimet spes futuræ beatitudinis.’ The
justice of a king is peace to the people, the defender of orphans, the
safety of the subject, the fertility of the earth, the comfort of the
poor, the inheritance of sons, and to himself a hope of future
happiness. It is an everlasting glory. And on this occasion the Psalmist
says, ‘Justitia et pax osculatæ sunt.’ Righteousness and peace have
kissed each other.

‘Should it be urged, that if due punishment be inflicted on this crime,
greater evils might ensue from the reputed power of the duke of
Burgundy. To this, which has more of appearance than reality, it may be
answered, That the duke of Burgundy is as nothing compared with the
power of the monarch; for what power or force can he have but what thou
givest him or sufferest him to enjoy?

‘Justice and truth, however they may be delayed, always in the end,
through Divine mercy, are the mistresses, and there is no security like
working for them. Who are the knights or esquires that would dare to
serve him against thee? or where are the strangers that would risk their
lives in his traitorous quarrel? Certainly none.

‘O! ye knights of Burgundy and Flanders, clerks and laymen, and all ye
vassals of our adversary, send hither men unbiassed by favour or hatred,
to hear this cause pleaded, truth declared, and justice adjudged to the
right, according as it shall be plainly shown.

‘O! most Christian king, ye dukes, counts and princes, have the goodness
to give your aid that justice may be administered, for which end you
have been principally constituted and ordained.

‘O, my lord king! consider how small a power, when compared with thine,
thy ancestors enjoyed, and yet they punished criminals of yet superior
rank to our opponent, as any one may see who shall read our history of
former times. Beside, who are they that would dare to oppose their
sovereign lord, who, doing an act of justice according to the evidence
of truth, becomes a true and upright judge, as Tully showeth, in his
second book of Offices: ‘Judicis est semper verum sequi.’ A good judge
should give judgment according to truth.

‘The same author says, in one of his orations before he went into
banishment,—‘Nemo tam facinorosus inventus est vita, ut non tamen
judicum prius sententiis convinceretur, quam suppliciis applicaretur.’
No one has led so wicked a life but that a verdict has been passed upon
his case before he was put to the torture.

‘Thou art bounden, most potent king, to do justice; and should any evil
result from it, it will fall on the adverse party, on account of his
crimes, as I shall show to you hereafter. The judgment of our LORD JESUS
CHRIST will not certainly fail of having its effect: ‘Qui de gladio
percutit, gladio peribit.’ Whoso kills with the sword shall die by the
sword. And Ovid, in his Art of Love, says, ‘Neque lex est æquior ulla,
quam necis artifices arte perire sua.’ No law is more just than that
murderers should perish by their own arts.

‘O, my lord king! open the gates of justice, and listen to the very
reasonable complaints which my lady of Orleans makes to thee, that thou
mayest verify in thyself the words of the prophet, ‘Dilexisti justitiam
et odisti iniquitatem propterea unxit te Deus tuus oleo leticiæ præ
consortibus tuis;’ that is to say, Thou hast loved justice, and hast
hated iniquity, wherefore the Lord thy God has anointed thee with the
oil of gladness above thy fellows;—and this finishes my fifth argument.

‘My sixth and last argument, for the present, is founded on the conduct
and demeanour of our opponent after this cruel and detestable crime.

‘There is nothing in this world a king should so much dread and check as
the overbearing pride of any subject in regard to his government; and
thou, O king! oughtest to follow, in thy governance, the example of the
King of kings, of whom holy writ says, ‘Deus superbis resistit,
humilibus autem dat gratiam.’ God humbles the proud, and raises up the
weak-hearted. Thou art therefore bound to humble the pride of our
opponent, which has increased to such a pitch as to make him resist thy
power in the support of this his wicked deed.

‘Oh! king of France, and all ye my lords, weigh well then the rebellion
and disobedience of our adversary, not only against the commands of the
king, but contrary to the orders of the whole royal council. It is a
well known fact, that the king of Sicily, my lord of Berry, and several
others, went lately to Amiens, notwithstanding the great severity of the
season, to attempt bringing about a reconciliation between the parties,
for the general good of the king and kingdom; but these lords, in truth,
could not effect this, though they signified to our opponent the king’s
commands,—but he contended that he would not wait upon his sovereign
until he should be sent for by the king himself.

‘When the aforesaid lords advised him to obey the king’s commands, they
could scarcely obtain from him a promise not to come to the king with a
great power of men at arms; and even then he delayed his coming for
fifteen days. Consider, my lords, what sort of obedience this is, and
what fatal consequences may ensue from it. After the conference at
Amiens, what was his conduct? Why, he assembled so large a force of men
at arms, that when he came to Paris, he seemed as if he would conquer
the whole kingdom.

‘It is true, indeed, that the king and the princes of his blood, hearing
of this, collected a sufficient power to provide a remedy. But when the
king had commanded him, by especial messengers, not to enter Paris with
more than two hundred men at arms, he came accompanied by more than six
hundred, in direct opposition to the king’s orders.—On his arrival in
Paris with so large a force, it seemed to him that the king, queen, and
other princes ought to act according to his will; and for certain, such
was the state of affairs that nothing was refused him, but the whole
court behaved courteously toward him, to appease his anger.

‘O, government of France! if thou wilt suffer such things to pass with
impunity, thou wilt soon have cause for lamentations. Our adversary next
caused all the barricadoes and defences round the king’s palace to be
taken away, that his wicked intentions, already begun, might be
completed. Such deeds are strong proofs of subjects having evil designs
against their king. It behoved him to have come to humble himself and
seek for pardon; but, on the contrary, he came with his sword drawn, and
accompanied by a numerous body of men at arms, the greater part of whom
were foreigners.—During his residence in Paris, he frequently excited to
rebellion the simple inhabitants, by spreading abroad his defamatory
libels, and various false promises. The citizens, believing he was to do
wonders, and to be the regent of the kingdom, have been so much deceived
by him that they paid great honour to him and to his writings, even by
cries of joy, and shoutings of the populace whenever he appeared; by
which and other like means, his pride and cruelty are increased, and
make him obstinately persist in his iniquities.

‘Alas! my lord king, is it not the very height of presumption to ride
through Paris openly armed, after having committed such a crime, and to
attend thy peaceful council with his battle-axes and lances? where thou
oughtest not to have suffered any one to have entered more armed than
thyself, lest the devil, who had instigated him to commit the base act
he did, should unfortunately have urged him to commit a still greater,
because the princes of the council did not approve of the wickedness he
had done. Therefore thou shouldest never allow any one culpable like
him, who takes the law into his own hands, to be in thy presence, more
strongly armed than thou art thyself; for it is possible for such as him
to beguile the people by the means before mentioned, and to lead them to
thy own destruction as well as that of thy realm.

‘Be pleased, therefore, to humiliate our opponent, and shew thyself an
upright and fearless judge in the cause of truth, that it may be said of
thee as it is written in the 8th chapter of the 3d book of
kings,—‘Judicabit servos suos, justificans quod justum est, attribuens
eis secundum justitiam.’ He will judge his servants, justifying them
that are upright, and giving to each according to his deserts. From
this, as well as from the preceding arguments, it plainly appears, that
thou art bounden to do the justice required by my lady of Orleans.

‘I shall now demonstrate the crime of our adversary, and how he
perpetrated such an unpardonable deed, to which I shall add six
arguments to prove the fealty and loyalty of my lord of Orleans, taking
for my theme the words of the advocate of our opponent,—namely, ‘Radix
omnium malorum cupiditas.’

‘It seems to me, that covetousness has been the original cause of this
murder,—not covetousness of wealth alone, but likewise covetousness of
honours and ambition.—Covetousness has then been the original cause, as
shall more plainly be shown hereafter.

‘To prove the greatness and abomination of this crime, I shall use six
arguments. The first is founded on our adversary having not the power or
authority of a judge over the deceased.

‘Secondly, Supposing he may have had any authority over him, he
proceeded in his own way, contrary to every maxim of law and of justice.

‘My third argument is grounded on the strict alliance that had been
formed between my late lord of Orleans and our adversary.

‘Fourthly, That this is a damnable murder, and cannot any way be
defended or explained.

‘Fifthly, That our opponent caused my lord of Orleans to be slain with a
wicked intention.

‘Sixthly, That, not satisfied with having caused the duke of Orleans to
be deprived of his life, he has exerted himself to disgrace his fame, by
defamatory libels,—thus, as it were, slaying him a second time.

‘As to my first argument, it plainly appears, that the malice of our
adversary is incorrigible, seeing that he had not any authority over the
deceased; for, according to the laws and decrees, as well as to reason
and the holy Scriptures, no one can put another to death without
authority from the judge or judicial. Otherwise, any one may slay
another at his pleasure, and tumults and confusion would reign without
any chief or head, and every one would alternately, when strongest, make
himself king.

‘So far was our adversary from having any power or authority over my
lord of Orleans that he was bound to do him honour and reverence as son
to a king, and to call him his lord, and respect him in his words and
actions, for such are the privileges and prerogatives belonging to the
sons of kings. This usurpation, therefore, of authority is apparent in
our adversary, and consequently his wickedness has been unjustly
perpetrated.

‘That authority is required as essential to enable any one to put
another to death appears clearly in many parts of the holy Scriptures:
and in fact, St Austin, when discussing the saying of our Lord, in the
26th chapter of the gospel of St Matthew,‘Omnis qui gladium acceperit,
gladio peribit;’ that is, Whosoever useth the sword shall perish by the
sword; adds, ‘All who shall, without lawful authority, make use of the
sword, or shall arm himself against another, is bold in his wickedness.’
He afterwards asserts, that even a malefactor cannot be put to death
without lawful authority; for in his Civitas Dei, ‘Qui, inquit, sine
publica administratione maleficum interfecerit, velut homicida
judicabitur.’ That is, Whoever shall slay a malefactor without the forms
of public administration of justice shall be judged guilty of murder.
This the law confirms, ‘Vigor, inquit, publicus tutela in medio
constituta est, ne quis de aliquo, etiam sceleribus implicato sumere
valeat ultionem:’—which is, That the public strength is as a defence
constituted and ordained to prevent any one from taking vengeance, even
upon him who is involved in great and abominable crimes.

‘In truth, the advocate for our adversary may say, that the laws should
only take cognizance of such as act contrary to law; and that as a
tyrant proceeds directly in opposition to them, he will affirm that this
murder is no way contrary to the law. Alas! and does the advocate of our
opponent know that my late lord of Orleans was a tyrant? Who is the
judge that declares him such?

‘The fallacy of this assertion must be strictly examined, for on this
deception is founded the supposition of my lord being a tyrant; and as
our adversary groundlessly asserts, that the late duke of Orleans was a
tyrant in the eye of reason, he concludes that it was lawful to put him
to death. Let us, however, consider the properties of tyranny, and who
should be accounted tyrants.

‘The philosopher says, in his 4th chapter on morals, ‘Tyrannus est, cum
aliquis princeps, vi et violentia potestatis, sine titulo terram usurpat
alienam, et de facto aliquam occupat civitatem vel patriam et qui
incorrigibilis est, et nulli obediens.’ Now let us see whether my lord
of Orleans had these properties. Certainly not; for he never took
possession of another’s land: if any one know the contrary, let him say
so.

‘Our opponent, therefore, ought not to have called the duke of Orleans a
tyrant, for he never usurped any dominion, excepting over such places as
were given him as appanages by the king, or what he had himself justly
acquired. The duke of Burgundy, on the contrary, withholds three castles
and their dependencies, without any just title, from the inheritance and
domain of the king, namely, Lille, Douay and Orchies, notwithstanding
his oaths on the holy sacrament to the king, that he would restore them
to the crown, according to the conditions and agreements then made.

‘My lord of Orleans was never incorrigible; for I firmly believe that
never did so great a prince pay more respect and honour to the laws.

‘Let our opponent say what acts or opposition the duke of Orleans ever
committed or made against the laws. There are many noble persons now
living, who can testify that no lord ever supported or maintained the
dignity of justice more than the duke of Orleans during his whole life.

‘If we consider the properties of a tyrant according to the
philosophers, they declare that a tyrant bends his whole mind to slay
and destroy the prudent and wise: he seeks the ruin of churches and
colleges of learning, and is solely occupied with destruction. He is
much to be feared for his wickedness, whilst he studies to preserve his
personal safety by strong guards. Such were not the qualities of my late
lord, for his were the direct opposite.

‘In the first place, he never caused either wise men or fools to be put
to death, but was particularly fond of the learned, and desirous of
seeing any new improvements. In regard to churches, so far from
destroying them, he repaired many, and founded some new ones, to which
he gave large estates, as is well known. As for guarding his personal
safety, he felt himself so innocent and pure toward all mankind, that he
suspected no one of attempting to hurt him, and took no precautions, as
you have seen, against his murderers. In fact, had he been of a
suspicious temper, he would not have been thus treacherously slain.

‘It is therefore wonderfully astonishing how our adversary should have
dared to have called the duke of Orleans a tyrant, by way of excusing
his abominable act, when it is apparent that his qualities were directly
the reverse to those of a tyrant. This I think a sufficient answer to
the damnable proposition of our opponent.

‘But the advocate for our adversary says, That whatever he may have done
contrary to the letter of the law was not, however, contrary to the
intention of the maker of the law, nor contrary to its spirit, but
through love of God. Who is he that has thus revealed to him the
intention of the Maker of the law, and that it is the object of laws to
cause men to be put to death without authority or sentence of the law?
The consequence would be, that any prince may be made away with, under
pretence that he was a tyrant; for every one would interpret the law
according to his fancy, which would create the greatest misfortunes.
‘Cujus est leges condere ejus est interpretari.’ It is therefore clear,
that our opponent could not establish laws binding on the duke of
Orleans, who was not his subject, or interpret the law in respect to
him. For although his advocate styles him dean of the peers, it does not
follow that he had any authority over the defunct; for if so, he would
have authority over the whole kingdom, and be equal to the king. What
though he be a peer? he has no power but over his own lands; and in so
much as he attributes to himself the power of another over the realm, he
appropriates to himself kingly domination.

‘His advocate has indeed alledged twelve reasons to prove that his lord
might lawfully put to death the duke of Orleans without orders from any
one whatever. The three first are founded on the declarations of three
doctors in theology, and three others on the writings of three moral
philosophers,—three on the civil law, and the three last on examples
drawn from the holy Scriptures.

‘With regard to the first, taken from the writings of St Thomas Aquinas,
who says,—‘Quando aliquis aliquod dominium sibi per violentiam suscipit
nolentibus subditis, vel sine consensu communitatis et non est recursus
ad superiorem per quem de tali invasore judicium posset fieri, tunc qui
ad liberationem patriæ talem tyrannum occidit laudatur et præmium
accipit.’ To this I reply, that it is no way applicable to the case; for
my lord of Orleans never intruded on any other’s domination by violence,
nor did he attempt to usurp the power and authority of the king. I say,
he never even thought of such a thing, as will more amply be shown in
the third part of my defence of him.

‘I am therefore right in saying, that Saint Thomas speaks of him who may
be proved a tyrant,—but my lord of Orleans was not one. On this subject
St Austin proposes a question, whether it be lawful for a pilgrim to
kill a robber, who is on the watch on the highway? and from his
conclusion it is apparent, that he does not think it lawful for any man
to put another to death without sentence of the law, as Henry de Gand
afterward determined.

‘I shall add, that supposing my lord of Orleans was such a person as our
opponent describes him, but which I deny, he had a safe resort to the
king, when he was in good health and cheerful with the queen and the
princes of his blood,—none of whom would have hesitated to have
personally exposed himself in bringing to punishment the duke of
Orleans, had he been proven guilty of usurping the king’s authority.
Most certainly, my late lord had too good an understanding to imagine he
could ever succeed to the crown, when so many obstacles were against him
and the king assured of successors.

‘The second reason is founded on the authority of St Peter, who says,
‘Subditi, estote regi quasi præcellenti sive ducibus tanquam ab eo
missis ad vindictam malefactorum, laudem vero bonorum quia hæc est
voluntas Dei.’ These words appear to me of no weight in the present
case; for it would seem that the Apostle would not that any duke should
have dominion over a whole kingdom, but solely in his own country:
otherwise it would follow that Brittany, Berry, and the other duchies
within the realm, should obey the duke of Burgundy.—The advocate has,
therefore, wrongfully perverted the holy Scripture to his purpose.

‘His third reason is drawn from what Sabellicus says, in the fifteenth
chapter of his third book, ‘Tyranno licet adulari quem licet occidere.’
That is to say, It is lawful to flatter and deceive a tyrant who may
legally be put to death; but Sabellicus here speaks of such as have been
proven and known for tyrants.

‘The fourth reason is founded on what Aristotle says, in his book on the
government of cities, That it is lawful, and even praiseworthy, to slay
a tyrant. But Aristotle alludes to a public tyrant; and such was not my
lord of Orleans, as I have before shown.

‘The fifth reason is grounded on the praise Tully, in his book ‘de
Officiis,’ gives to those who killed Cæsar. To this I reply, that
although Tully was a man of great ability, he here speaks as an
ill-wisher to Cæsar; for he was always of the party, and supported the
cause of Pompey the rival and adversary to Cæsar,—and Cæsar perpetrated
many deeds which my lord of Orleans never thought of.

‘The sixth reason is grounded on what is said in the sixth chapter of
the second book of the Misfortunes of great Men: ‘Res est valde
meritoria occidere tyrannum.’ To this I answer, That it must apply only
in cases where no other remedy can be had; and the conduct of our
opponent has been illegal and wicked.

‘The seventh and two following reasons are founded on the civil laws,
which declare there are three sorts of men who may lawfully be put to
death,—namely, such as disgrace their knighthood, highway robbers, and
housebreakers found during the night within any dwelling. Now my lord of
Orleans cannot be included with any one of the above three classes. He
was ever attended by a noble body of chivalry, and was fond of it beyond
measure. And in regard to the two other cases, I maintain that the law
does not command such to be slain except when the danger is most
inevitable. They can in no wise be applicable to my lord of Orleans,
who, thank God, was no waylayer on the high roads, nor a housebreaker;
and there is no law in the world that can excuse our adversary.

‘The example of Moses, who slew an Egyptian without any authority, is
produced to support the tenth reason. To this I say, according to the
opinion of St Austin and many other doctors, that Moses sinned in
killing the Egyptian; and although Moses and St Peter both acted
contrary to the rules of justice, their cases are not similar,—for Moses
was a Hebrew, and noticing an unbeliever moving towards his brother, to
slay him, put him to death to prevent him from so doing.

‘The eleventh reason is grounded on the instance of Phineas, who slew
Zambry without orders, and not only remained unpunished, but was
remunerated for it. Thomas Aquinas says, in exculpation of this act,
that he did it as a teacher of the law, for he was the son of the high
priest, and, on this account, had power and public authority. This is
also inapplicable to the question before us, as history will show.

‘The twelfth reason is founded on Saint Michael having slain Lucifer
without the Divine command. For this he was rewarded with riches and
power, as our opponent says. To this I reply, That St Michael did not
slay Lucifer,—and the assertion that he did so is deserving only of
derision; for the slaying of Lucifer is nothing more than the
deprivation of the Divine grace, and of the sovereign glory of paradise,
whence he was cast out by God for his inordinate pride. O, my lords! in
what book has this advocate learned such theology? I am confounded at
the boldness of his assertions, for there is not certainly any book in
which it can be found. On the contrary, we see in the epistle of St
Jude, that St Michael dared not to rail against Lucifer, although he had
power over him, nor command him to do any thing; but he only said, ‘Our
Lord commands thee;’ and thus it clearly appears, that the arguments
which our adversary has produced are no way applicable to his case, nor
can they serve to justify his disloyal and treacherous act.

‘I repeat, that such murders as the above, which our opponent has
brought forward, are not of any consequence as examples; for many things
have been suffered, that are mentioned in the Old Testament, which are
now forbidden. As for instance, Samuel, as a churchman, put to death the
king Amalech,—but at this day it is not lawful for a churchman to commit
such crimes. To Moses was given the power of repudiation from the
marriage-vow, which is now forbidden. The doctrine, therefore, which is
here attempted, and the examples quoted to palliate and even justify
this atrocious crime, cannot be supported; and truly princes would be in
constant dread of death, if this deed go unpunished,—for should any evil
report be spread abroad of them, some one of their subjects might take
it into his head to punish them himself for it.

‘O, princes! consider well, that if such doctrines are supported, any
man may say, ‘I also may kill him as such a one did.’ You will therefore
be pleased to condemn this false doctrine as dangerous, seditious and
abominable. Our adversary, and all those of his party, may then say with
Jeremiah, in his twentieth chapter, ‘Confundantur vehementer qui non
intellexerunt opprobrium sempiternum quod nunquam delebitur.’

‘The second argument is founded upon this consideration, that the cruel
death of the duke of Orleans was not accomplished according to the way
of justice; and supposing our adversary had the right to inflict it, he
was, notwithstanding, bound to do so according to the forms of law, by
information, and on the testimony of irreproachable witnesses. But he no
way followed this course; for he first kills the duke of Orleans, and
then seeks for reasons to exculpate himself for so doing. O, God! what a
trial, and what a judge!! O, justice! do thy duty; and what thou owest
to thyself, defend thy own cause against one who seeks to reduce thee to
nothing. In truth, every law ordains that causes should be first tried,
and sentences examined, before they are put into execution; and to this
purpose Julius Cæsar, according to what Sallust relates, said, That when
judges shall put men to death before they be condemned, the greatest
evils may arise, and no man live in security. He brings, as an example,
the Lacedemonians, who, after their victory over the Athenians,
constituted thirty persons to govern the public state, who put to death
numbers without any previous trial, which caused great misfortunes.

‘The like will befal us, if such crimes are suffered to go unpunished.
Sallust tells us, that when Cataline and his associates were intending
to burn the city of Rome and murder its senators, Tully was then consul;
but although he was fully acquainted with the plot, he did not cause one
of the conspirators to be put to death until he had fully proved their
guilt. Now, my lords, as I have fully and clearly proved the heinousness
of the crime with which I have charged the duke of Burgundy; and as it
was done contrary to all law and justice, I trust it will not remain
unpunished, according to the words of our Lord by the prophet Isaiah, in
his 47th chap.: ‘Videbitur opprobrium tuum, ultionem capiam, et non
resistet mihi homo.’

‘My third argument is grounded on our adversary’s having entered into
the strongest possible alliance with the duke of Orleans, in the
presence of many of their dependants; and a twelvemonth prior to the
murder of the above duke this alliance was renewed before several
prelates, nobles, clergymen and counsellors of each side, when the two
dukes swore on the crucifix, with the holy evangelists in their hands,
to the due and faithful observance of it, promising, on the salvation of
their souls, and by their honour, that henceforward they would be to
each other as brothers and companions in arms, engaging to reveal
mutually any evil designs that might be plotted or meditated against
their persons or interests. They then agreed to wear each other’s badge,
which was done. And at the last feast at Compiègne, for the greater
confirmation of the above, my lord of Orleans and our adversary made
many of their knights and dependants alternately swear, that they would
loyally and truly abide by and support the bonds of friendship entered
into between them, through love and attachment to their persons,—and
would make known to each party any thing that should be imagined against
their persons or estate.

‘Moreover, my lord of Orleans and our adversary entered into other
private engagements, promising and swearing on the true cross, that they
would mutually defend and guard each other’s person and honour against
all who should attack them. This agreement was signed with their own
hands and seals.

‘What now, O duke of Burgundy! canst thou say to these things? Who now
can put any confidence in thee? for thou canst not deny the above
alliance, as there are many witnesses to it now living: thou hast been
publicly seen by the whole city wearing the badge of the duke of
Orleans.

‘How did my late lord act? Certainly in no way hurtful to our opponent;
for from that time no reproachful or angry words passed between them,
that could any how be ill interpreted. It is plain, therefore, that our
adversary has wickedly and treacherously put to death him who had the
fullest confidence in his honour.

‘O duke! what reply canst thou make to this? Shouldst thou say, that
thou didst cause him to be put to death on account of the wickedness
which thou hast by thy command caused to be imputed to him,—say, then,
why thou enteredst into any alliance or bonds of friendship with such an
infamous traitor as thou hast had him painted. Thou knowest, that loyal
men will never form a friendship with traitors. Thou sayest, that the
duke of Orleans was a traitor to his king: thou therefore makest thyself
a traitor by the act of forming an alliance with him.

‘Thou hast accused my lord of Orleans of having made an alliance with
Henry of Lancaster: what wilt thou say to the alliances thou thyself
afterward enteredst into with the duke of Orleans. If these things had
happened after thy alliance with my late lord, thou wouldst have had
some colour to have broken with him, although even this would have been
barely sufficient; but thou knowest well that thou hast not alledged any
thing against him, in thy scandalous libel, posterior to these
alliances.

‘O, abominable treason! what can be offered in thy excuse? O ye knights,
who consider honour as your judge! God will never suffer you to approve
of such deeds.

‘O, duke of Burgundy! thou hast frequently visited the duke of Orleans,
when alive: thou hast eaten and drank with him: thou hast even taken
spices out of the same dish with him, in token of friendship. In short,
on the Tuesday preceding his death, he most kindly invited thee to dine
with him the Sunday following, which thou promisedst to do in the
presence of my lord of Berry, now here. Assuredly my lord of Orleans
might have quoted the words of JESUS CHRIST to the traitor Judas, ‘Qui
mittit manum mecum in paropside, hic me tradet.’

‘O, my lords! weigh well this treason, and apply a remedy to it.
Consider how strongly the faith and loyalty of chivalry should be
guarded and the words of Vegetius, when speaking of chivalry, ‘Milites
jurata sua omnia custodiant.’ To the observance of this, all princes are
bound,—for he who shall disgrace his loyalty or honour is unworthy of
being called a knight.

‘My fourth argument is founded on this consideration, that the death of
my late lord, the duke of Orleans, was damnable and disloyal,—and any
one who should maintain or assert the contrary would not be a good
Christian. We see that the secular justice allows to malefactors time
for repentance,—but thou, cruel adversary! thou hast caused my lord so
suddenly to be put to death that, inasmuch as in thee lay, he died
without repenting of his sins. It seems, therefore, that thou hast
exerted all thy influence to procure the eternal damnation of his soul
when thou destroyedst his body; and most assuredly thou wilt find great
difficulty to make thy peace with God,—for insomuch as thou believest
him the greater sinner, so much the more need had he, as thou mayst
suppose, of a fuller and longer repentance.—It follows, then, that thou
hast deprived him, to the utmost of thy power, of any possibility of
repentance,—and consequently thy sin becomes the more grievous and
inexcuseable, more especially as my lord was no way expecting to die
when he was thus suddenly and cruelly cut off.—Nevertheless, I trust
that our Lord may have granted that he died in his grace; and I the more
readily believe it, inasmuch as, a short time before this sad event, he
had most devoutly confessed himself.

‘I repeat, that it is the deed of a wicked Christian thus to put a man
to death; and whoever may say the contrary, or maintain that it is
meritorious, I tell him, that he speaks wickedly and erroneously,
according to the theologians.

‘Hear, my lords, and consider the conduct of our adversary after the
death of the duke of Orleans,—how on the Thursday following his murder,
clothed in black, and with tears and every sign of grief, he accompanied
the dead body from the church of the Guillemins to that of the
Celestins! Weigh well, my lords, this treachery and dissimulation! O
Lord God, what tears and groans!!! O, Earth! how couldst thou bear such
wickedness? Open thy mouth, and swallow up all who commit such dreadful
sins.

‘Recollect, that on the ensuing Friday, at the hôtel of the duke of
Berry, in his presence and in that of the king of Sicily, our adversary
advanced towards the servants of the late duke of Orleans, entreating
them to make every inquiry after the author of this murder, and begging
them to recommend him to the duchess of Orleans and to her children:
then the three noble persons having conferred together, the duke of
Berry declared the request was proper, and that they would exert
themselves as much as possible to discover the person who had committed
this atrocious act.

‘O, duke of Burgundy! thou promisedst to do this, by the mouth of my
lord of Berry, whereas thou didst the worst thou could; for, not
satisfied with having caused the murder of his body, thou seekest to
destroy the reputation of the defunct. Thou promisedst to seek most
diligently after the murderer, while thou knewest it was thyself that
wast the criminal.

‘Now, my lords, consider well, that after a resolution had been taken to
seek after the author of this crime, our adversary, the duke of
Burgundy, conscious of his guilt, confessed that it was he who had
caused the death of the duke of Orleans. When he made this confession on
his knees to the king and my lord the duke of Berry, he affirmed, that
what he had done was by the instigation of the devil; and certainly in
this instance he spoke the truth, for he was urged to it by jealousy and
ambition.

‘O, my lords! weigh well this confession, and how our adversary
contradicts himself,—for when he first confessed his guilt, he said he
had been instigated to it by the devil; but afterward he commands it to
be argued, that he committed so atrocious a deed legally and
justifiably. If he feel no shame for his wickedness, he ought at least
to be sensible of his thus meanly contradicting himself. Consider also,
that he was desirous of concealing his crime; and God knows, that if his
deed had been of that worth as has been advanced for him, he would have
gloried in having so done, and not have wished to remain undiscovered as
the perpetrator. And why did he own his guilt? Because it could no
longer be concealed. That this was the cause is apparent; for when he
perceived that it must be known, he fled most precipitately from Paris,
like to one in despair. He might have said, with Judas the traitor,
‘Peccavi tradens sanguinem justum.’

‘O Philip, duke of Burgundy! wert thou now alive, thou wouldst not have
approved the conduct of our adversary, but wouldst have said thy son had
degenerated. Thou wert surnamed The Bold,—but he was always fearful and
suspicious, consequently a traitor. Thou mightst have truly applied to
him what is written in the fifth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,
‘Cur temptavit sathanas cor tuum mentiri te Spiritui Sancto? non es
mentitus hominibus sed Deo.’

‘My fifth argument is grounded on the falsehood of the declarations of
our opponent, that he had caused the death of the duke of Orleans with
the purest intentions; for, on the contrary, he committed this crime
through lust of power, and to gain greater authority over the kingdom,
and also to possess himself of the royal treasury, that he might more
largely gratify and increase his dependants. This is evident from the
conduct of our adversary before and after the death of the duke of
Orleans.

‘It is a truth, that shortly after the death of his father the duke of
Burgundy, he exerted himself to the utmost to obtain similar power in
this realm, and with the same pensions and authority as his late father
had enjoyed. But this was not granted to him, because his father had
been uncle to the king, and was a man of great prudence and
understanding, qualities not possessed by our adversary.

‘Having been disappointed, he instantly began to practise how he could
better obtain his object; and for this end, prior to the death of the
duke of Orleans, he caused reports to be circulated throughout the
kingdom of his affection to the public weal, and that he alone was the
fittest person to govern it. When he perceived, that in spite of his
fictions, the duke of Orleans still possessed the authority he was
panting for, because he was the son of a king, and the only brother to
the king, and more fit for the government than the duke of
Burgundy,—seeing, therefore, all his plans frustrated, he conspired to
take away the life of the duke of Orleans, expecting that when he should
be made away with, no other person would dare to dispute his having the
sole government of the kingdom.

‘This is the principal cause of so barbarous a murder, notwithstanding
the arguments that have been urged in his excuse, as is well known to
all. His conduct, likewise, after the death of my late lord of Orleans,
confirms it; for instantly, on his return to Paris, he began to push
forward those that were his dependants and supporters, by depriving many
valiant and deserving men of places which they held under the king,
without any other cause but that they had been appointed to them by my
lord of Orleans, as others had been, and giving their offices to such as
he pleased, in order to gain more authority and power. He also
endeavoured to make all placemen, particularly those who had the
management of the royal treasury, subservient to him, that they might
not refuse him any thing.

‘Our adversary was most anxious to have the government of the treasury,
and obtained from it the sum of two hundred thousand livres, by warrants
thereon, or otherwise, great part of which he distributed among his
people, as is well known to the clerks of the treasury; and this was his
principal object in putting to death his rival in power, my late lord of
Orleans, namely, covetousness of the king’s money, and to give it away
and enrich his followers. It appears, therefore, that covetousness and
pride have been the springs of his actions; but, please God, he shall
not in this instance profit from them,—and the words of Job, in his
seventh chapter, shall be verified, ‘Cum habuerit quod cupierit,
possidere non poterit.’

‘My sixth and last argument is founded on the conduct of our adversary,
who, not satisfied with having murdered the late duke of Orleans,
attempts, in conjunction with his followers, to deprive him of his good
fame and renown, by defamatory libels, wherein he groundlessly and
falsely charges him with the crimes of divine and human high treason, of
which he was perfectly innocent, as has been, and shall be again
demonstrated.

‘It may be said, that this justification is even more scandalous than
the fact itself; for to fall into sin is the lot of humanity, but
obstinately to persevere in it is diabolical. And this manner of
justifying murder is the defence of his own sin, and daring to do what
God hates: he follows not the example of David when he said, ‘Non
declines cor meum in verba maliciæ ad excusandas excusationes in
peccatis.’

‘I come now to my third division, in which I shall reply to the
defamatory libel, and to the accusations therein, that were made by our
adversary against the character of my late lord of Orleans. I may fairly
quote the words of the Psalmist, on the part of my late lord, ‘Judica me
Domine secundum justitiam meam, et secundum innocentiam meam super me.’
This request the Psalmist makes to God, and such a request, O king! does
the duchess of Orleans now make to thee, as she requires nothing but
judgment and justice. May it please thee to listen to the answers of my
lady of Orleans to the six charges brought against her late lord, and
thou wilt then judge whether he has not been unjustly accused.

‘The first charge brought against the late duke of Orleans by the
advocate of the duke of Burgundy is, That during his lifetime he
committed the crime of high treason in the highest degree, by his
idolatrous conduct in witchcrafts and sorceries, contrary to the
Christian faith and the honour of God. It is true, that in regard to
this accusation, the advocate did not pursue it very far, saying, that
the judgment of such crimes belonged to God, the sovereign
Lord,—meaning, that no human judge was competent to it.

‘When making this charge, he spoke of an apostate monk and several
sorcerers, in whom my late lord of Orleans put confidence, according to
his allegations. I shall scarcely offer any reply to this accusation,
but, in like manner as he has done, refer the whole to the judgment of
God. It will be sufficient for me to show, in the first place, That my
late lord of Orleans was a good and true Christian; that he never
committed any sorceries or idolatries, nor ever departed from the faith
of JESUS CHRIST.

‘I may likewise add, That from his youth upward, he was of a religious
turn of mind,—for, notwithstanding his fondness for amusements, his
reliance was in God, to whom he very often confessed himself. Nay, the
very Saturday preceding his death, he had most devoutly confessed
himself, with many signs of contrition, declaring he would not longer
follow youthful pastimes, but solely devote himself to the service of
God, and to that of the public welfare. That I may not be suspected of
uttering falsehoods, many religious as well as others, are now alive, to
whom he had made such declarations; and, without saying more, let his
uncle the duke of Bourbon be heard, who knows what promises he made to
God,—for a little before his decease, he assured him, that henceforward
his conduct should be such as to merit the approbation of God and
mankind, and that all the inhabitants of this kingdom should be bound to
pray for him.

‘I know not if our adversary had heard of these wise declarations, or
whether he was afraid of their being effected, as they were quite in
opposition to his wish for the government; for he well knew that if my
lord of Orleans should act as he had said he would, his authority in the
kingdom would have been very small indeed. It may therefore be presumed,
it was for this that he was so eager to have my lord of Orleans put to
death.

‘O, Lord God! thou knowest how well he was inclined toward thee at the
time of his being murdered, which gives me confidence in his salvation;
for the holy Scripture says, ‘Justus si morte præoccupatus fuerit in
refrigerio erit.’ It is, however, evident, that our adversary did all he
could to destroy his soul, and afterward heard mass most devoutly in
appearance, putting what had passed out of his thoughts, and daily
saying his canonical prayers.

‘O, duke of Burgundy! why hast thou done all this through hypocrisy and
fiction? Who has revealed to thee the secrets of hearts? and who has
made thee the judge of men’s thoughts? Thou resemblest the Pharisees,
who called CHRIST a deceiver and possest of a devil! Thou knowest, that
even angels are ignorant of the secrets of our hearts, and yet thou
pretendest to judge them! O! how well does the Psalmist exclaim, ‘Tu
solus es scrutans renes et corda!’

‘It is notorious, that my late lord founded many masses and private
chapels, doing much service to the church: let then his last will, so
devoutly written, be considered with what I have before said, and any
one may decide whether he was an idolater or sorcerer. It is true,
indeed, that the advocate for our adversary refers to the judgment of
God all that respects divine high treason, saying that he will not make
this an especial charge against the late duke of Orleans.

‘But I now ask why he thus acts? Because he knows the charge is
groundless, and that in many places human judges may and do punish
sorcerers and idolaters according to their power; and that numbers have
for these crimes been condemned to death, because they were bad
Christians, and that from such errors of the faith proceed heresies. It
is written in the second book of Kings, that Josias killed and
extirpated diviners and sorcerers; and in the tenth chapter of
Zacharias, ‘Divini viderunt mendacium et somniatores locuti sunt
frustra.’ It is also written in the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus, ‘Ne
declinetis ad magos, nec ab ariolis aliquid sciscitemini.’

‘The reason why the advocate passed so rapidly over this charge was,
that he knew nothing against my lord of Orleans that could prove him a
bad Christian, or that he was not firm in his belief of religion. O,
lord king! my lady of Orleans supplicates thee, that the words of Job,
in the twenty-second chapter, may be verified,—‘Salvabitur innocens in
munditia manuum suarum.’

‘The second accusation was, That my lord of Orleans favoured the schism
in the church, by affording aid to Pietro della Luna, formerly called
Pope Benedict, and was consequently guilty of high treason in the second
degree. In reply, I say, that my lord of Orleans gave no aid nor showed
any favour, but with the laudable end of making an honourable peace in
the church, and particularly when he considered Benedict as the true
pope. It is well known, that our obedience to the church would have been
brought about more to our honour if Pietro della Luna had done his duty,
by yielding up his claims, for the union of the church, than by
violently supporting them. My lord of Orleans may have said, it will be
better to wait a little, for the above Pietro to send in his cession,
than by hurrying make affairs worse. In this there could not be any evil
intentions; for it is a fact, that he was anxious for the union of the
church, and believed firmly that Pietro della Luna was willing to
abdicate his claims, whenever the roman pontiff should be ready to do
the same.

‘Many are now living who have heard the duke swear, that if he knew
Pietro della Luna was unwilling to yield up his pretensions, when the
other pope should resign his, he would be the bitterest enemy he had in
the world; and should it be thought necessary, they are ready to prove
it. Now let us consider what advantage the division of the church could
be of to him. He was wise enough to see all the evils that flowed from
it, and not so weak as to found confidence on a man so old as Pietro
della Luna. He knew, besides, that by the union of the church more
spiritual and temporal advantages would fall to the share of himself and
friends, without comparison, than if the schism were continued.

‘To show more evidently the earnest desire my lord of Orleans had for an
union of the church, I will mention a proposal which he made to the
university of Paris three weeks before his death. When he perceived that
the roman pontiff would neither come to Genoa nor Savoy, nor accept as
hostages those who had been presented to him by the mareschal de
Boucicaut, and that nothing else prevented the union of the church, for
Pietro della Luna was ready to go to either of these places, he
addressed the following speech to the members of the university: ‘O
rector, and you all my good friends! see I pray ye that we may shortly,
through the grace of God, restore peace to the church, and may give
satisfactory security, that the roman pope may come to Genoa. I have
offered him the choice of one of my sons, as his hostage, and am ready
to send him, at my own expense, to Venice, or elsewhere. Write,
therefore, such letters as you shall think proper to him, and I will
sign them. Tell what I have said to the whole university, and bring me
their opinions on it.’

‘The heads of the university thanked him very warmly for his
offer,—adding, that he could not make a more generous proposal, and that
he had demonstrated by it the affection he bore to the church. There are
persons still living whom he had ordered to go to Rome and Venice to
give notice of the offer he had made. Now, my lords, could he have done
more than to give his own flesh and blood for an hostage? And our
witnesses of this act are neither weak nor ignorant persons, but doctors
and professors of theology.

‘O, duke of Burgundy! this will show to thee how false has been thy
accusation; and on this charge thou oughtest to have been silent,
knowing as thou must how anxious thou wert to acquire the friendship of
Pietro della Luna. At the time when Pietro was in the greatest disgrace,
thou didst write and send to him to obtain bishopricks and other
preferments for thy dependants; and thy messengers were not pages nor
common persons, but the guardian of thy soul, namely, thy confessor,
that he might the more clearly and securely explain thy meaning.

‘It was also said, that my lord of Orleans consented to the malicious
excommunication sent by Pietro della Luna to induce the king to continue
his obedience to him. Now it is quite clear that this wicked
excommunication carries no effect against Pietro della Luna, except in
case the king should become disobedient, and that he had given his
consent to the said excommunication, which, as has been said, was to
have no effect, except in case of renunciation of allegiance or
disobedience. It is certain that Pietro della Luna was of a temper
obstinate enough to do such things, and that he acted thus without
consulting any one, and as certain that my lord of Orleans was
unfavourable to this act,—for it was not put in force until after his
death.

‘Weigh, at the same time, my lords, the misconduct of our adversary, and
the innocence of the duke of Orleans, who may say with the Psalmist, ‘Os
peccatoris et os dolosi super me apertum est, locuti sunt adversum me
lingua dolosa, et sermonibus odii circumdederunt me.’

‘The third charge of our adversary is, that my late lord of Orleans
practised different means to cause the death of his prince and lord, the
king of France: first, as it is said, by sorceries, witchcrafts and
superstitions;—secondly, by poisons;—thirdly, by fire, water, or other
violent injections, which consequently inculpates my lord of Orleans in
the crime of human high treason, in the person of the king our lord.

‘In regard to the first part of the charge relative to poison, supposed
to be administered by a monk under the forms of a sword, a buckler, a
ring, or a wand,—and that, to accomplish this, my lord of Orleans had
sent for this monk, a knight, an esquire and a varlet, to whom, our
adversary says, he gave large sums of money,—all this I deny as absolute
falsehoods, for my said lord of Orleans never consented to sorceries or
such forbidden deeds.

‘Should this monk have done such sorceries, it was no way through the
exhortation of my lord of Orleans, nor ought this to have been so
lightly alledged against him,—for there was a long trial held of this
monk before the ministers of the king, from whom the truth may be known.
It was then discovered by the confession of the monk, that my lord had
forbidden him to use any magic arts that would any way prove to the
prejudice of the king’s person; and God knows, if there had been any
truth in the charge, it would not have been concealed until after my
lord’s death.

‘By this, the falsehood of the accusation is evident; and although my
foresaid lord may have at times held some conversation with this monk,
let it be remembered that he was then young, not more than eighteen
years old, and that princes of that age are frequently deceived by
artful talkers, to gain money from them.

‘With respect to the bone wrapped up in a small linen bag which he wore
between his shirt and skin, as our adversary says, until it was torn
from him by a knight, whom he hated ever after, and continued to
persecute until he had ruined him in his fortune, and procured his
banishment out of the realm,—this is most assuredly false; for the
knight was banished the kingdom by sentence of the courts of justice for
a very notorious cause, and this odious circumstance was never mentioned
but by this knight who published it, and who, according to our
adversary, was suspected of hatred to the duke of Orleans, and
consequently not a competent witness to be admitted against the defunct.

‘Consider, my lords, what falsehoods are contained in the accusations of
our adversary, and that such as read his libel must be deceived. It
behoves, therefore, the reverend professors of theology to correct it as
soon as possible, for they know that such libels ought not to be written
nor published; but the most marvellous circumstance of all is, that this
libel and these falsehoods have been suffered and made public by a
theologian in the presence of the king’s majesty.

‘We are at present in a similar situation to that in which Saint Austin
represents the companion of the physician and astrologer disputing on
twin children, the one fat and the other lean. The astrologer
attributing the difference to the ascendancy of the stars,—the physician
declaring, that the fat one received the soul first, and, being the
strongest, sucked nearly the whole of the food,—which ought to be
believed? The physician, certainly, as St Austin says. We, in like
manner, may give greater credit to the faculty of medicine in this
manner than to the faculty of theology: the professor has very foolishly
argued his case.

‘O, most merciful God! apply a remedy to this, for thou seest
theologians affirm that sorcerers may succeed in their incantations; and
it is erring against the holy Scriptures to say, that sorcerers are
others than liars. And the wise Solomon makes this answer to those who
asserted similar errors, in the 33d chapter of Ecclesiasticus,—‘Quod
divinatio erroris, et arguta mendacia et somnia maleficiorum vanitas
est.’ Thomas Aquinas quotes this authority to prove that sorcerers
cannot succeed.

‘O, thou university of Paris! please to correct thyself; for such absurd
sciences are not only forbidden, as being contrary to the honour of God,
but as containing nothing true, which is confirmed by the workers of
magic.

‘Ovid says, in his book, ‘De Remedia Amoris,’

             ‘Fallitur Hermionæ si quis mala pabula terræ:
              Et magicas artes posse juvare putat.’

‘Master John de Bar, who was very expert in this accursed art, and who
was burnt, with all his books, declared, at his last confession, that
the devil never appeared to him, and that his invocations and sorceries
never succeeded, although many said the contrary. He added, that he had
practised this art to obtain money from persons of high rank. It is
therefore most strange to charge the duke of Orleans with such vain and
foolish sorceries, as there never was a man who hated them more, or who
persecuted such as practised them with greater rigour.

‘Every one knows that my late lord was the principal cause of the trial
of John de Bar and of two augustan friars, before the king’s council and
clergy summoned for this purpose, and were in consequence executed for
their evil deeds.

‘With regard to what the advocate for our opponent says, that the late
lord of Milan only gave his daughter to the duke of Orleans in the hope
of her being queen of France; and that, on her taking leave of him, he
should say, ‘Adieu! my child: I never wish to see thee again but as
queen of France.’ This is absolutely false; for my lord of Milan was in
treaty with the duke of Gueldres, brother to the king of the Romans, to
marry his daughter: ambassadors were even on their road to Milan to
conclude the match, when Bertrand Gaad, at that time tutor to the count
de Vertus, was sent by the king and the dukes of Berry and Burgundy,
(whose soul may God receive!) to propose the alliance of the duke of
Orleans.

‘The lord of Milan, preferring the honour of a connexion with France,
consented to give his daughter to the duke of Orleans, ceased to treat
with the duke of Gueldres, and recalled the ambassadors he had sent to
him. As to the words the lord of Milan has been supposed to address to
his daughter on her taking leave of him, they are also false,—for he
left Pavia without seeing or speaking to her, because he could not have
done either without weeping. The advocate for our adversary utters
another falsehood, when he says, that the lord of Milan expressed his
astonishment to a french knight, on his telling him the king of France
was in good health, replying, ‘Thou sayest, that the king of France is
in good health: how can that possibly be?’ My lord of Milan is too
reserved ever to have held such a conversation; and it is well known to
many now alive, that my lord of Milan loved the king of France above all
other princes, and was very much attached to his family. This he always
testified by the honours and presents he lavished on ambassadors and
nobles of France, who travelled through his country, all from his
respect to the king and his royal blood.

‘With regard to the history of that gallant man, sir Philip de Mezieres,
whom the advocate has most scandalously defamed,—it is true, that when
sir Philip came from Cyprus, king Charles, whom God pardon! retained
him, and made him his chamberlain. After the death of the king, sir
Philip put on the humble dress of a monk, in the church of the
Celestins, where he devoutly remained until his death. The late duke of
Burgundy had a friendship for the lord of Milan, and, perceiving sir
Philip to be a man of ability and prowess, sent him to Milan to propose
a croisade to the holy land: the lord of Milan received him honourably,
and willingly listened to all he had to say.

‘Before that time, sir Philip had never resided in Milan, nor had any
connexion with the lord Bernabo, uncle to the present lord. Sir Philip
had left Milan very long before any mention was made of the marriage of
the duke of Orleans with the present duchess, which clearly proves how
ill founded have been the imputations of our adversary.

‘Another infamous falsehood has been boldly advanced, namely, that my
lord of Orleans, seeing he could not compass the king’s death by
sorceries, practised other means to accomplish it, that he might succeed
to the crown of France, by promising to one man four thousand francs, to
another five thousand, to make up and administer different poisons,—and
that some accepted his offers, and others refused them. Most assuredly,
if there had been such loyal persons as to refuse these great sums of
money, they would not have hesitated to reveal the matter, that it might
be inquired into and punished; but as they have not done so, we may
safely conclude the assertion is false.

‘Our adversary has alledged, that at a dinner at the queen’s palace, the
duke of Orleans threw some powder over the king’s dish. This may be
proved to be false, for no mention was made during the dinner of any
such act,—for it is clear, that if the queen had observed any thing of
the sort at her dinner, she would have denounced it to the servants and
family of the king, otherwise she would not have been loyal.

‘As to the story of the queen’s almoner, which our adversary has brought
forward,—namely, his falling down dead and losing his hair and nails,—it
is notoriously false, for he lived five or six years after the time when
he was supposed thus suddenly to die. I may therefore apply to our
opponent the words of the prophet Jeremiah, in his seventh chapter,
‘Ecce vos confiditis in sermonibus mendacii, sed non proderunt vobis.’

‘Our adversary next advances, that my lord of Orleans, finding he could
not destroy the king by poisons or sorceries, attempted to do it by fire
and other means; that my lord of Orleans, in consequence, proposed a
masquerade dance of persons dressed as savages, in cloth covered with
pitch and tow, and other inflammable materials,—among the number of whom
was the king,—and that the duke of Orleans caused his dress to be made
too tight, that he might be excused from being of the party. Our
adversary adds, that when one of the king’s servants was warning him of
the danger that might ensue from such dresses, the duke of Orleans was
greatly enraged and gave him much abusive language: in short, that my
lord of Orleans set fire to the king’s dress, who was in the utmost
peril of death, had not God, and certain ladies by their exertions,
prevented it.—Now, in answer to this heavy charge, I shall reply, that
my lord of Orleans did not provide the dresses, nor could he then have
known where to have sought for them.

‘The dukes of Berry and Burgundy, lately deceased, well knew who were
the proposers of this dance, and that it was not the duke of Orleans.
Had he been the author of it, he would not have escaped death, or very
great blame, considering the commotion it caused, for he had then
scarcely any power. As to what our adversary says, that the dress of the
duke of Orleans was purposely made too tight, there is not the smallest
appearance of truth in it, for at that time the duke was the thinnest of
the company.

‘It is true, that my lord of Orleans and the lord Philip de Bar had gone
before the commencement of this ball to visit the lady of Clermont, who
had not come to the wedding held at the hôtel de St Pol, for which this
entertainment was given, and on their return they found all the dresses
had been made use of. This was the sole cause why the duke of Orleans
was not dressed to make one of the party.

‘It is an infamous lie to say, as our opponent has done, that the duke
of Orleans wished to burn the king our lord; for the duke and the lord
Philip de Bar intended dressing themselves in these clothes, and,
without thinking or intending any ill, they both told Peter de Navarre
to set fire to the dresses of the savages, that when on fire they might
run among the ladies to frighten them. Peter de Navarre is living, and
he can prove the truth of this to the king. Let us suppose, that in this
youthful frolic, my lord of Orleans should have set fire to one of the
dresses, as he had ordered the same to be done to all, it is not
credible that it could have been done through malice or evil intentions.
It is then apparent, that what our adversary has asserted is a lie; and
I comfort myself with the words of the prophet,—‘Perdes omnes qui
loquuntur mendacium,’—and in the 20th chapter of Proverbs, ‘Qui profert
mendacia peribit.’

‘As to the alliances which our opponent says the duke of Orleans entered
into with Henry of Lancaster, at present calling himself king of
England, to the prejudice of the king and realm, and colouring his
assertion by adding, that Richard, late king of England, had assured the
king of France, that his infirmities were solely owing to the
machinations of the dukes of Milan and Orleans,—I answer, that they are
wicked falsehoods; for when Henry of Lancaster came to France, he was
most honourably received by the princes of the royal family as their
relation, and frequented the company of the duke of Orleans and others
of the blood royal as of their kindred, when, as a friend to the king,
he formed an alliance with the duke of Orleans publicly, and in the
presence of the king and princes of the blood, which at the time was
considered as perfectly lawful, and for the good of the kingdom. This
plainly shows, that my lord of Orleans had made no alliance against king
Richard; but what is more, at the treaty of marriage of the king’s
daughter, now duchess of Orleans, with king Richard, the duke of Orleans
and king Richard formed an alliance similar to that which the latter had
formed with the king of France.

‘After this, my lord of Orleans went to Calais, where he was most
amicably received by king Richard as a very dear brother. In addition,
when king Richard died, the duke of Orleans showed great grief for it,
and made an enemy of king Henry of Lancaster, by the challenges he sent
him, accusing him of being guilty of the crime of high treason against
his sovereign lord king Richard, offering to fight the said king Henry,
in revenge for the death of Richard, either in single combat, or with
any number of persons he might choose.

‘These and many more circumstances can be brought forward to prove that
my lord of Orleans had a strong affection for king Richard, from his
alliance by marriage with the king of France, and that he hated king
Henry for having laid hands on his sovereign.

‘There is not more truth in what our adversary has advanced, that my
lord of Orleans, when with Pietro della Luna, exerted himself to obtain
bulls to the prejudice of the king and his family, and on this account
always favoured the said Pietro; for at that time my lord of Orleans had
procured with this Pietro, then called Benedict, a very advantageous
alliance for the king of France, by which he engaged to support the king
and his family by every means in his power, as may be seen in the bulls
issued to this effect. It is therefore very extraordinary, that any man
endowed with common sense should have asserted publicly things that are
evidently false.

‘As to what our adversary says, that my lord of Orleans supported Pietro
della Luna, I have before answered it; and my lord proposed himself,
that if the two rival popes did not speedily agree to send commissioners
to the council, France should withdraw itself from their obedience.

‘This was more displeasing to Pietro della Luna than any thing that had
been done in this kingdom relative to church-affairs, and is not a sign
that my lord of Orleans was desirous of retarding an union of the church
in favour of Pietro della Luna. It is therefore evident, that the duke
of Orleans is innocent of the charges that have been brought against
him.

‘O, lord king! may it please thee to guard his innocence by means of thy
justice, according as it is written in the 13th chapter of Job,
‘Justitia custodit innocentis viam.’

‘The fourth accusation of our adversary is, That for the space of three
whole years my lord of Orleans, by his artful and deceitful tales, and
advice to the queen, attempted to prevail on her to quit the kingdom,
with her children, and reside in the county of Luxembourg, that he might
enjoy greater power in the government of the realm. So far is this
charge from being true, that my lord of Orleans did every thing in his
power to honour and support the queen during the melancholy illness of
the king, of which it does not become me to say more, for, thanks to
God, she is now present, and knows full well the truth of this, and
which she may more fully declare whenever it may be her good pleasure so
to do. I do not, however, know that she made any complaints on this
subject to our adversary, or to any other persons. I believe the
contrary, to this charge of our opponent, will be found to be the truth;
and that it has been purposely brought forward to defame the reputation
of the deceased.

‘The fifth accusation is, That my lord of Orleans committed the crime of
high treason in the third degree, on the person of my lord the dauphin,
whose soul may God pardon! by compassing his death by means of a
poisoned apple given to a child, from whom one of the nurses of the
children of the duke of Orleans took it by force, and gave it to one of
the children of the duke of Orleans, and caused its death, as well as
that of the dauphin, who also ate of it.

‘This is an absolute falsehood. True it is, that one of the duke of
Orleans’ children died about the time when this fact was supposed to
have taken place, of a bowel complaint, which was then very prevalent,
and carried off many others. Let the physicians, master William le
Boucher and master John de Beaumont, be examined, who visited this
child, and they will declare the truth, that it did not die of poison.

‘Consider, my lords, the improbability of a nurse of the children of the
duke of Orleans daring to give an apple or pear to any of them without
the express orders of the duchess of Orleans; and that when the nurse
went to these gardens with the child she was accompanied by several
women of character, who would not have suffered her to give it an apple,
or any suchlike thing.

‘O most noble and well-beloved duke of Acquitaine! while young, learn to
love justice, and act like Solomon. Consider the evils that may happen
unless justice be observed; and if thou neglectest it, thou wilt not
love thy brothers, for they will be in danger of death if the doctrines
of our adversary be not checked. The prophet says, ‘Justitiæ Domini
rectæ lætificantes corda.’

‘The sixth crime alledged against the duke of Orleans is, That he
committed high treason in the fourth degree, by ruining the king in his
finances, and by oppressing the people with intolerable taxes, and
quartering large bodies of men at arms in various parts of the country.
My lords, it is very astonishing that our adversary should have made
this charge; for it is notorious to every one, that these taxes were not
levied in this kingdom for its own concerns, nor were they for the
profit of the duke of Orleans: they were proposed with great
deliberation of the king, the princes of his blood, and his council, for
the benefit of our adversary himself, in his expedition to Hungary, and
for the payment of the ransom of himself and his army. This was the
cause of such heavy taxes being raised throughout the kingdom, and of
immense sums of money being sent to Turkey, and other distant places, to
the irreparable loss of the country.

‘When our adversary charges the duke of Orleans with having taken four
thousand francs from the tower of the palace, and one hundred thousand
from the castle of Melun,—I reply, that it is false: if any sums of
money were in the tower of the palace, they were distributed according
to orders from the king. In regard to the hundred thousand francs in the
castle of Melun, it is well known that the queen and the duke of Orleans
went thither to amuse themselves,—during which time, our adversary very
improperly came to Paris with a large body of men at arms, and forced
the duke of Acquitaine to return thither, instead of going, as he
intended, to join his mother the queen. He had collected this force of
men at arms with the design of attacking the queen and the duke of
Orleans in Melun, which, of course, made it necessary for her majesty to
raise an army for her own defence, and for the security of the king and
kingdom.

‘She was therefore advised to make use of the money in the castle of
Melun for the pay of the men at arms, but my lord of Orleans never
touched one penny of it; and when it came to the knowledge of the king,
he was well satisfied that it had been so applied.

‘It therefore appears, that this sum of money was expended to oppose the
damnable act of our adversary, and for no other cause. In regard to the
men at arms said to have been kept on foot by my lord of Orleans,
certainly some bodies of them, being quartered over the country,
declared they were sent thither by command of the duke of Orleans, in
order that no one might dare to molest them,—but they had no letters or
commissions from him. On the contrary, he was greatly displeased at the
evil acts they at times committed.

‘When their conduct was laid before the king and council, the duke of
Orleans caused letters to be sent in the king’s name to all bailiffs and
other officers throughout the realm, ordering them to assemble the
nobles and gentlemen of the country to force those who committed such
disgraceful acts to quit the kingdom, having first punished them for
their wicked conduct.

‘O, duke of Burgundy! recollect the irreparable damages that have been
done to many parts of this realm by the bodies of men at arms which thou
hast introduced within it, many of whom were foreigners, who wasted the
countries they passed through, and every one should feel compassion for
events of so pitiable a nature: they can never be enough bewailed.

‘O, thou king of France! most excellent prince, deplore the death of thy
only brother; for thou hast lost the most precious jewel in thy crown,
which thy justice ought to avenge, if no other way be found.

‘O, thou most noble queen! weep for a prince who so greatly honoured
thee, and whom thou hast seen so infamously murdered.

‘O thou, my most redoubted lord, duke of Acquitaine! lament that thou
hast lost the most precious member of thy blood, council and state,
which has caused thee to fall from peace into great tribulation.

‘O, thou duke of Berry! grieve that thou hast seen the brother of the
king thy nephew thus disgracefully end his days, solely because he was
brother to the king, and for no other reason.

‘O, duke of Brittany! thou hast lost the brother to thy duchess, who
greatly loved thee.

‘O, thou duke of Bourbon! weep that thy friend is now buried under
ground; and ye other princes! join in lamentations, for the way is now
opened to put ye all to death most traitorously and unexpectedly.

‘Mourn, men and women, old and young, rich and poor! for the sweetness
of peace and tranquillity is now torn from ye, by this assertion of the
doctrine of assassinating princes, whence wars and destruction must fall
upon you.

‘O, ye churchmen! deplore the loss of a prince who was much attached to
you, and who greatly respected all who performed the divine service,
from his love to God.

‘Ye clerks, and nobles of all degrees! consider how ye will henceforward
act; for our opponent has deceived you by his false arguments, and
caused you to favour his wickedness. But as ye are now aware of the
murder committed on the person of the duke of Orleans, of the falsity
and lies published in our adversary’s defamatory libel, and consequently
of the innocence of my lord of Orleans,—should ye, from this time forth,
in any way support the party of our adversary, know that it will be
treason against the king, and you will then incur the danger of losing
your lives and fortunes, as usual in such cases.

‘Understand then, princes and men of all degrees, that ye are bounden to
assist in maintaining the laws against the duke of Burgundy, who, by
this murderous act, has usurped the power and authority of the king and
his sons, and has deprived them of great aid and consolation; for he has
brought the commonweal into grievous tribulation by shamelessly
violating the wholesome statutes in vindicating his offence against
nobility, kindred, oaths, alliances and assurances,—against God and all
his saints. This mischief cannot be amended except by the laws. To
obtain this reparation, my lady of Orleans and her children are now come
before thee, O lord king! and the princes of thy royal blood,
supplicating you all to weigh well the injury that has been done to
them, and to make them amends in the manner required by her council, or
in any other way, so that it may be publicly known that her lord was
cruelly murdered, and unjustly and falsely accused and defamed. By doing
this, you will perform your duty as you are bounden to do, and acquire
eternal life, as it is written in the 21st chapter of Proverbs, ‘Qui
sequitur justitiam inveniet vitam et gloriam,’—which may God, who reigns
and lives for ever and ever, grant. Amen.’


                        END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

 AT THE HAFOD PRESS,
  BY JA. HENDERSON.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Footnotes

Footnote 1:

  These deeds, and the greater part of others quoted in these memoirs,
  are preserved in the Chartulary of Cambray. Extracts from them were
  communicated by M. Mutte, dean of Cambray, to M. de Foncemagne, who
  lent, them to M. Dacier.

Footnote 2:

  They are preserved in MS. by the regular canons of St Aubert in
  Cambray.

Footnote 3:

  ‘This extract was published by M. Villaret in the xiith vol. of his
  ‘Histoire de France,’ edition in 12mo. page 119.’

Footnote 4:

  ‘The text of Monstrelet is _Pâques Communiaux_. This expression has
  seemed to some learned men to be equally applicable to Palm as to
  Easter Sunday. M. Secousse, in a note on these words, which he has
  added to page 480 of the ixth volume of Ordinances, reports both
  opinions, without deciding on either. But the sense is absolutely
  determined as to Easter-day in this passage of Monstrelet, and in a
  paper quoted by du Chesne, among the proofs to the genealogy of the
  house of Montmorenci, p. 224. It is a receipt from Anthony de
  Waevrans, esquire, châtelain of Lille, with this date,—‘the 2d of
  April, on the vigil of _Pâques communiaux avant la cierge benit_, in
  the year 1490.’ The circumstance of the paschal taper clearly shows it
  to have been written on holy Saturday, which fell that year on the 2d
  of April, since Easter-day of 1491 was on the 3d of the same
  month.—See l’Art de Verifier les Dates.’

Footnote 5:

  Essais de Montaigne, liv. xi. chap. 10.

Footnote 6:

  I have a copy of these corrections, which are introduced either into
  the body of the text or at the bottom of the page.

Footnote 7:

  ‘More slobbering than a mustard pot;’ but Cotgrave translates this,
  ‘Foaming at the mouth like a boar.’

Footnote 8:

  ‘Having compared these different chronicles, underneath is the result.

 The truces between England and France,
   from the                                   Grandes Chroniques.

 Measures taken by the king of France
   relative to the troubles in the
   church, by the election of the duke
   of Savoy to the popedom,                                 Ditto.

 Continuation of the same subject,                          Ditto.

 Taking of Fougeres,                     Ditto, and in Jean Chartier.

 Rebellion in London,                       Ditto.          Ditto.

 Capture of Pont de l’Arche, &c.            Ditto.          Ditto.

 Events of War,                             Ditto.          Ditto.

 From page 11. to page 23. in the
   original,                                Ditto.

 From page 141. to page 157.                Ditto.

 With this difference, that the continuator of Monstrelet omits to
   report the treaties of surrender of many towns, and that he
   sometimes inverts the order of events.

 From page 29. to page 35. from the           Grandes Chroniques.

          158.        164.                          Ditto.

           35.         36.                Do. but somewhat abridged.

           36.         38.                          Ditto.

          165.        171.                          Ditto.

           38.         40.                          Ditto.

           40.                               Chronicles of Arras.’

Footnote 9:

  From chapter ccxvii to ccxxxvi in the translation, third volume, 4to.

Footnote 10:

  ‘The capture of Sandwich by the French has been twice told; and also
  the account of the embassy from Hungary,—the duke of Burgundy’s entry
  into Ghent,—the proceedings against the duke of Alençon,—the account
  of what passed at the funeral of king Charles VII.’

Footnote 11:

  ‘The copy of this chronicle, whence D. Berthod made his extract, is
  (or perhaps rather was) in the royal library at Brussels. Pere le Long
  and M. de Fontette notice another copy in the abbey of St Waast at
  Arras. This must be the original, for D. Berthod told me, that the one
  at Brussels was a copy.’

Footnote 12:

  ‘Vol. xvi. of the Memoires de l’Académie, page 251.’

Footnote 13:

  See his preface at the head of the first volume, page 7.

Footnote 14:

  Epistola plurium doctorum e societate Sorbonicâ ad illustrissimum
  marchionem Scipionem Maffeium, de ratione indicis Sorbonici, seu
  bibliothecæ alphabeticæ, quam adornant, &c. 1734.

Footnote 15:

  This quaint expression is manifestly adopted from Froissart who uses
  it very often.

Footnote 16:

  The house of Bavaria was at this period split into so many branches,
  the males of every branch retaining, according to the german custom,
  the title of the head of the house, that it becomes a difficult task
  to point out their several degrees of affinity without having recourse
  to a genealogical table. The following will suffice for the purpose of
  explaining Monstrelet:

                                      1245.
                                 LEWIS the Severe,
                               Duke of all Bavaria.
                                        |
                         1294.          |             1294.
                           +------------+---------------+
                           |                            |
             1.            |           2.               |
           Beatrix  =    Lewis,   =  Margt.          Rodolph,
             of     |   emperor,  |  heiress          count
           Glogaw   |     and     |    of            palatine
                    |    duke     |  Holland           of
                    |     of      |    and             the
                    |   Bavaria.  |  Hainault.        Rhine.
                    |             |                     |
                    |             |                     |
         +----------+     +-------+-------+          +--+--+-----------+
         |                |               |          |     |           |
       1347.            1355.           1377.        | Rodolph II.  Robert I.
      Stephen,         William         Albert,       |   C. Pal.      1353.
        D. of          the Mad,        count of      |    1327.
      Bavaria.         count of        Hainault      |
         |            Holland, &c.    & Holland.     |
         |                                |          |
         |                                |          |
    1375.|                                |          +-----------------+
      +--+------+-----------+           1404.                          |
      |         |           |         +---+-----+-----------+       Adolphus,
    John,    Stephen,    Frederick,   |         |           |        count
     D.        D.           D.       John,  William VI.  Margaret   palatine.
     of        of           of        bp       (m.          m.        1319.
    Munich.  Ingolstadt,  Landshut.   of     Margaret,     John        |
             (father to              Liege.   daugh.       duke        |
               queen                         to Philip      of      Robert II.
             Isabella.)                        duke      Burgundy.   1390.
                                             of Burg.)                 |
                                                |                      |
                                   1417.        |            1398.     |
                                     +----------+            +---------+
                                     |                       |
                                 Jacqueline              Robert III.
                                    died                   emperor,
                                  without                   1401.
                                   issue.

Footnote 17:

  Q. Luttrel, or Latimer?

Footnote 18:

  The whole of this romantic passage seems to refer to the ancient
  courts of love, the institution of which was considerably prior to the
  fifteenth century.

Footnote 19:

  The wars for the succession of Arragon had terminated two years
  previous to this, otherwise we should be at no loss to account for the
  business which forced Michel d’Orris to return from France.

Footnote 20:

  The kings of Castille were at this period styled kings of Spain, κατ’
  εξοχην.

Footnote 21:

  This was the year of the jubilee. The plague raged at Rome, where, as
  Buoninsegni informs us, seven or eight hundred persons died daily. Few
  of the pilgrims returned. Many were murdered by the pope’s soldiers,
  an universal confusion prevailing at that time throughout Italy.

Footnote 22:

  John V. duke of Brittany, had issue, by his several wives, John VI.
  his successor, Arthur count of Richemont and duke of Brittany in 1457,
  Giles de Chambon and Richard count of Estampes. His daughters were
  married to the duke of Alençon, count of Armagnac, viscount of Rohan,
  &c. John VI. married Joan of France, daughter of Charles VI.

Footnote 23:

  Manuel Paleologus.

Footnote 24:

  ‘The emperor of Constantinople came into Englande to require ayde
  against the Turkes, whome the king, with sumptuous preparation, met at
  Blacke-heath, upon St Thomas day the apostle, and brought him to
  London, and, paying for the charges of his lodging, presented him with
  giftes worthy of one of so high degree.’

                                                             STOWE, 326.

Footnote 25:

  Waleran de Luxembourg III. count of St Pol, Ligny and Roussy,
  castellan of Lille, &c. &c. &c. a nobleman of very extensive and rich
  possessions, attached to the duke of Burgundy, through whose interest
  he obtained the posts of grand butler 1410, of governor of Paris and
  constable of France 1411. He died, 1415, leaving only one legitimate
  daughter, who, by marriage with Antony duke of Brabant, brought most
  of the family-possessions into the house of Burgundy.

Footnote 26:

  Joan, daughter of Charles the bad, third wife of John V. Her mother
  was Joan of France, sister to Charles V. the duke of Burgundy, &c.
  Joan, duchess dowager of Bretagne, afterwards married Henry IV. of
  England.

Footnote 27:

  After the death of Wenceslaus duke of Brabant and Luxembourg (the
  great friend and patron of Froissart), the latter duchy reverted, of
  right, to the crown of Bohemia. But during the inactive and dissolute
  reign of the emperor Wenceslaus, it seems to have been alternately
  possessed by himself, by governors under him nominally, but in fact
  supreme, or by Jodocus M. of Brandenburg and Moravia, his cousin. In
  the history of Luxembourg by Bertelius, several deeds and instruments
  are cited, which tend rather to perplex than elucidate. But he gives
  the following account of the transaction with Louis duke of Orleans:
  ‘Wenceslaus being seldom in those parts, and greatly preferring
  Bohemia, his native country, granted the government of Luxembourg to
  his cousin the duke of Orleans; and moreover, for the sum of 56,337
  golden crowns lent him by Louis, mortgaged to him the towns of Ivoy,
  Montmedy, Damvilliers and Orchiemont, with their appurtenances.’ In a
  deed of the year 1412, the duke of Orleans expresses himself as still
  retaining the government at the request of his dear nephew Jodocus;
  but this appears to be a mistake, since Jodocus was elected emperor in
  1410, and died six months after, before his election could be
  confirmed. He was succeeded by his brother Procopius.

Footnote 28:

  Rupert, or Robert, elector palatine (see the genealogy, p. 12.) was
  elected emperor upon the deposition of Wenceslaus king of Bohemia.

Footnote 29:

  John Galeas Visconti, first duke of Milan, father of Valentina duchess
  of Orleans. During the reign of Wenceslaus, he had made the most
  violent aggressions on the free and imperial states of Lombardy, which
  it was the first object of the new emperor to chastise. The battle or
  skirmish here alluded to was fought near the walls of Brescia.

Footnote 30:

  This chapter presents a most extraordinary confusion of dates and
  events. The conclusion can refer only to the battle of Shrewsbury,
  which took place more than two years afterwards,—and is again
  mentioned in its proper place, chap. XV.: besides which, the facts are
  misrepresented. Monstrelet should have said, ‘The lord Thomas Percy
  (earl of Worcester) was beheaded after the battle, and his nephew
  Henry slain on the field.’ The year 1401 was, in fact, distinguished
  only by the war in Wales against Owen Glendower, in which Harry Percy
  commanded for, not against, the king. The Percies did not rebel till
  the year 1403.

Footnote 31:

  This John de Werchin, seneschal of Hainault, was connected by marriage
  with the house of Luxembourg St Pol.

Footnote 32:

  Enguerrand VII. lord of Coucy and count of Soissons, died a prisoner
  in Turkey, as related by Froissart. Mary, his daughter and co-heiress,
  sold her possessions, and this castle of Coucy among the rest, to
  Louis duke of Orleans. His other daughters were, Mary wife of Robert
  Vere, duke of Ireland (the ill-fated favourite of Richard II.) and
  Isabel, married to Philip count of Nevers, youngest son of the duke of
  Burgundy.

Footnote 33:

  Spinguchen. Q. Speenham?

Footnote 34:

  Jodocus marquis of Moravia and Brandenburg, cousin-german to the
  emperor Wenceslaus, appears to be here meant. See the following

                                      TABLE.

                   1. Isabel,  =  John, king of Bohemia,  =  2. Beatrix,
                   heiress of  |     killed at Crecy.     |  daughter of
                   Bohemia.    |                          |  Louis duke
                               |                          |  of Bourbon.
                               |                          |
        +----------------------+-------+-------------+    +-----------+
        |                              |             |                |
        |                              |             |                |
      Charles IV. emperor.        John-Henry,     1. Margaret,    Wenceslaus,
           |                      marq. of         m. duke of     duke of
           |                      Moravia.         Bavaria.       Luxemburg,
           |                           |          2. Bona,         m. Joan
           |                           |           m. K. John      duchess of
           |                           |           of France.      Brabant &
      +----+---------+           +-----+-----+    3. Anne,         Limburg,
      |              |           |           |     m. Otho D.      d. s. p.
      |              |           |           |     of Austria.
      |              |           |           |
    Wenceslaus,  John,       Jodocus,    Procopius,
     emperor.    duke of     marq. of    marq. of
     d. s. p.    Luxemburg   Brand.      Brand.
                 & Goritia.  & Moravia,  & Moravia,
                      |      d. 1411.    after Jodocus.
                      |
                 Elizabeth,
           m. Antony D. of Brabant.
     2dly, John of Bavaria, bishop of Liege.

Footnote 35:

  Charles the bold, married to a daughter of Robert of Bavaria, elector
  palatine, and afterwards emperor.

Footnote 36:

  Adolphus II. duke of Cleves, married Mary daughter of the duke of
  Burgundy.

Footnote 37:

  This seems to allude, in an enigmatical manner, to the charge of
  sorcery and witchcraft against the person of the king of France, of
  which the duke’s enemies accused him, as we find afterwards in doctor
  Petit’s justification of the duke of Burgundy.

Footnote 38:

  This was the half-sister of Richard, and daughter of the countess of
  Kent, by her second husband, Thomas Holland, knight of the Garter, and
  earl of Kent in right of his wife. She had been before separated from
  her first husband, William Montague, earl of Salisbury. Her third
  husband was Edward prince of Wales, by whom she had king Richard.

Footnote 39:

  Edward duke of Aumerle and earl of Rutland, son to Edmund duke of
  York, and cousin-german both to Richard II. and Henry IV. The reason
  of the personal hatred of the count de St Pol against this prince
  appears to be his having deserted and betrayed the conspirators at
  Windsor. The discovery of that plot probably hastened the death of
  Richard II.

Footnote 40:

  James II. count de la Marche, great chamberlain of France, succeeded
  to his father John in 1393, died 1438.

Footnote 41:

  Louis, count of Vendôme (the inheritance of his mother) second son of
  John count de la Marche, died 1446.

Footnote 42:

  John, lord of Clarency, third son of John count de la Marche, died
  1458.

Footnote 43:

  Sallemue. Q. Saltash?

Footnote 44:

  Chastel, the name of a noble house in Brittany. Tanneguy, so often
  mentioned hereafter, was of the same family.

Footnote 45:

  Morlens. Q. Morlaix?

Footnote 46:

  Chastel-Pol. Q. St Pol de Leon?

Footnote 47:

  At the entrance of Brest harbour.

Footnote 48:

  In 1383, he was appointed to the office of grand treasurer.

Footnote 49:

  He is said, during his exile, to have signalized himself, like a true
  knight, in combating the Saracens, of whom he brought back to France
  so many prisoners that he constructed his magnificent castle of
  Seignelay without the aid of other labourers.—Paradin, cited by
  Moreri, Art. ‘Savoisy.’

Footnote 50:

  William de Tignonville. The event here recorded happened in 1408.
  After the bodies were taken down from the gibbets, he was compelled to
  kiss them on the mouths.

                                                                 MORERI.

Footnote 51:

  John, king of Arragon, was killed in 1395 by a fall from his horse
  while hunting. By Matthea of Armagnac, his queen, he had two
  daughters, of whom the eldest was married to Matthew viscount de
  Chateaubon and count of Foix, who claimed the crown in right of his
  wife, and invaded Arragon in support of his pretensions. But the
  principal nobility having, in the mean time, called over Martin king
  of Sicily, brother of John, to be his successor, a bloody war ensued,
  which terminated only with the death of the count de Foix. After that
  event (which took place in 1398), Martin remained in peaceable
  possession of the crown. The right to the crown, both by the general
  law of succession and by virtue of the marriage-contract, appears to
  have been in the countess of Foix; but the states of the kingdom here,
  as in some other instances, seem to have assumed a controuling,
  elective power. This authority, probably inherent in the constitution,
  was more signally exercised in the death of Martin without issue in
  the year 1410.

Footnote 52:

  Jean Carmen. Q. Carmaing?

Footnote 53:

  Pierre de Monstarde. Q. Peter de Moncada, the name of an illustrious
  family in Arragon?

Footnote 54:

  Duke de Caudie. Q. Duke of Gandia? Don Alphonso, a prince of the house
  of Arragon, was honoured with that title by Martin on his accession.

Footnote 55:

  De Sardonne. Q. Count of Cardona? He was one of the deputies from the
  states to don Martin, on the death of John.

Footnote 56:

  D’Aviemie. Q. Count of Ampurias? This nobleman was another descendant
  of the house of Arragon. He espoused at first the party of Foix, but
  soon reconciled himself to Martin.

Footnote 57:

  Before called Peter.

Footnote 58:

  Of this invasion, Stowe gives the following brief account: ‘The lord
  of Cassels, in Brytaine, arrived at Blackepoole, two miles out of
  Dartmouth, with a great navy, where, of the rustical people whom he
  ever despised, he was slaine.’

Footnote 59:

  John de Hangest, lord de Huqueville.

Footnote 60:

  Owen Glendower.

Footnote 61:

  Linorquie. Q. Glamorgan?

Footnote 62:

  Round Table. Q. Caerleon in Monmouthshire, one of Arthur’s seats?

Footnote 63:

  Regnault de Trie, lord of Fontenay, was _admiral_ of France on the
  death of the lord de Vienne, killed at Nicopolis. He resigned, in
  1405, in favour of Peter de _Breban_, lord of Landreville, surnamed
  Clugnet, and hereafter mentioned, but falsely, by the name of Clugnet
  de _Brabant_.

Footnote 64:

  This famous battle was fought at Angora in Galatia.

Footnote 65:

  Charles III. succeeded his father, Charles the bad, in 1386.

Footnote 66:

  This county descended to him from his great grandfather Louis, count
  of Evreux, son to Philip the bold, king of France. Philip, son of
  Louis, became king of Navarre in right of his wife Jane, daughter of
  Louis Hutin. He was father of Charles the bad.

Footnote 67:

  Mary of France, daughter of king John, married Robert duke of Bar, by
  whom she had issue Edward duke of Bar and Louis cardinal, hereafter
  mentioned, besides other children.

Footnote 68:

  Rather aunt. John III. duke of Brabant, dying in the year 1335,
  without male issue, left his dominions to his eldest daughter Joan,
  who married Wenceslaus duke of Luxembourg, and survived her husband
  many years, dying, at a very advanced age, in the year 1406. She is
  the princess here mentioned. Margaret, youngest daughter of John III.
  married Louis de Male, earl of Flanders; and her only daughter
  Margaret (consequently niece of Joan duchess of Brabant) brought the
  inheritance of Flanders to Philip duke of Burgundy.

Footnote 69:

  The heiress of Flanders, mentioned in the preceding page.

Footnote 70:

  Catherine, married to Leopold the proud, duke of Austria.

Footnote 71:

  Margaret, married to William of Bavaria, (VI. of the name), count of
  Holland and Hainault.

Footnote 72:

  Mary, married to Amadeus VIII. first _duke_ of Savoy, afterwards pope
  by the name of Felix V.

Footnote 73:

  Limbourg, on the death of its last duke, Henry, about 1300, was
  purchased, by John duke of Brabant, of Adolph count of Mons. Reginald
  duke of Gueldres claimed the succession; and his pretensions gave rise
  to the bloody war detailed by Froissart, which ended with the battle
  of Wareng.

Footnote 74:

  John, son of Louis the good, duke of Bourbon, so celebrated in the
  Chronicle of Froissart. The family was descended from Robert count of
  Clermont, son of St Louis who married the heiress of the ancient lords
  of the Bourbonnois. Louis, son of Robert, had two sons, Peter, the
  eldest (father of duke Louis the good) through whom descended the
  first line of Bourbon and that of Montpensier, both of which became
  extinct in the persons of Susannah, duchess of Bourbon, and Charles
  count of Montpensier her husband, the famous constable of France
  killed at the siege of Rome. James, the younger son of Louis I. was
  founder of the second line of Bourbon. John, count of la Marche, his
  son, became count of Vendôme in right of his wife, the heiress of that
  county. Anthony, fifth in lineal descent, became king of Navarre, in
  right also of his wife, and is well known as father of king Henry IV.

Footnote 75:

  Matthew count of Foix, the unsuccessful competitor for the crown of
  Arragon, was succeeded by his sister Isabel, the wife of Archambaud de
  Greilly, son of the famous captal de Buche, who became count of Foix
  in her right. His son John, here called viscount de Châteaubon, was
  his successor.

Footnote 76:

  Charles d’Albret, count of Dreux and viscount of Tartas, constable,
  lineal ancestor of John king of Navarre.

Footnote 77:

  Carlefin. Q. Carlat?

Footnote 78:

  Duke Albert had four other children not mentioned in this history,
  viz. Albert, who died young,—Catherine, married to the duke of
  Gueldres,—Anne, wife of the emperor Wenceslaus,—and Jane, married to
  Albert IV. duke of Austria, surnamed the Wonder of the World.

Footnote 79:

  Peter de Luna, antipope of Avignon, elected after the death of Clement
  VII.

Footnote 80:

  Hollingshed says, sir Philip Hall was governor of the castle of Mercq,
  ‘having with him four score archers and four-and-twenty other
  soldiers.’

  The troops from Calais were commanded by sir Richard Aston, knight,
  ‘lieutenant of the english pale for the earl of Somerset,
  captain-general of those marches.’

Footnote 81:

  Hangest, a noble family in Picardy. Rogues de Hangest was _grand
  pannetier_ and maréschal of France in 1352. His son, John Rabache,
  died a hostage in London. John de Hangest, grandson of Rogues, is here
  meant. He was chamberlain to the king and much esteemed at court. His
  son Miles was the last male of the family.

Footnote 82:

  Aynard de Clermont en Dauphinè married Jane de Maingret, heiress of
  Dampierre, about the middle of the 14th century. Probably their son
  was the lord de Dampierre here mentioned.

Footnote 83:

  Andrew lord de Rambures was governor of Gravelines. His son, David, is
  the person here mentioned. He was appointed grand master of the
  cross-bows, and fell at the battle of Agincourt with three of his
  sons. Andrew II. his only surviving son, continued the line of
  Rambures.

Footnote 84:

  John de Craon, lord of Montbazon and Sainte Maure, _grand echanson_ de
  France, killed at Agincourt.

Footnote 85:

  Antoine de Vergy, count de Dammartin, maréschal of France in 1421.

Footnote 86:

  Hollingshed says, this expedition was commanded by king Henry’s son,
  the lord Thomas of Lancaster, and the earl of Kent. He doubts the earl
  of Pembroke bring slain, for he writes, ‘the person whom the Flemings
  called earl of Pembroke.’ He also differs, as to the return of the
  English, from Monstrelet, and describes a sea-fight with four genoese
  carracks, when the victory was gained by the English, who afterward
  sailed to the coast of France, and burnt thirty-six towns in Normandy,
  &c.

Footnote 87:

  John lord of Croy, Renty, &c. counsellor and chamberlain to the two
  dukes of Burgundy, Philip and John, afterwards grand butler of France,
  killed at Agincourt.

Footnote 88:

  John de Montagu, vidame du Laonnois, lord of Montagu en Laye,
  counsellor and chamberlain of the king, and grand master of the
  household. He was the son of Gerard de Montagu, a bourgeois of Paris,
  secretary to king Charles V. Through his great interest at court, his
  two brothers were presented, one to the bishoprick of Paris, the other
  to the archbishoprick of Sens and office of chancellor.

Footnote 89:

  This term may excite a smile. Monstrelet was a staunch Burgundian.

Footnote 90:

  He styles himself count of Rethel, because, as duke of Limbourg, he
  was a member of the empire, and owed the king no homage.

Footnote 91:

  Brother of William count of Hainault.

Footnote 92:

  Philip the bold, king of France, gave the county of Alençon to his son
  Charles count of Valois, father of Philip VI. and of Charles II. count
  of Alençon, who was succeeded by his son Peter, the third count, who,
  dying in 1404, left it to his son, John, last count and first duke of
  Alençon, here mentioned. Alençon reverted to the crown on the death of
  Charles III. the last duke, in 1525.

Footnote 93:

  Louis II. son of Louis duke of Anjou and king of Naples, brother to
  king Charles V. whose expedition is recorded by Froissart.

Footnote 94:

  The devices of the two parties are different in Pontus Heuterus.
  (Rerum Burgundicarum, l. 3.) According to him, the Orleans-men bore on
  their lances a white pennon, with the inscription, _Jacio Aleam_; and
  the Burgundians set up in opposition pennons of purple, inscribed
  _Accipio conditionem_.

Footnote 95:

  William II. count of Namur.

Footnote 96:

  Monstrelet is mistaken as to the names of the english ambassadors. The
  first embassy took place the 22d March 1406, and the ambassadors were
  the bishop of Winchester, Thomas lord de Camoys, John Norbury,
  esquire, and master John Cateryk, treasurer of the cathedral of
  Lincoln.

  A second credential letter is given to the bishop of Winchester
  _alone_, of the same date. Another credential is given to the same
  prelate, bearing similar date, to contract a marriage with the eldest
  or any other daughter of the king of France, and Henry prince of
  Wales.

  See the Fœdera, anno 1406.

Footnote 97:

  This is a mistake. His true name was Peter de Breban, surnamed le
  Clugnet, lord of Landreville.

Footnote 98:

  Mary, daughter of William I. count of Namur, married first to Guy de
  Châtillon, count of Blois, and secondly to this admiral de Breban. On
  the deaths of both her brothers (William II. in 1418, and John III. in
  1428) she became countess of Namur in her own right; and after her it
  came to Philip the good, duke of Burgundy, as a reversion to the
  earldom of Flanders.

Footnote 99:

  Frederick, second son of John duke of Lorraine, and brother of Charles
  the bold, obtained the county of Vaudemont (originally a branch of
  Lorraine) by marriage with Margaret daughter and heir of Henry V.
  count of Vaudemont and Joinville.

Footnote 100:

  Olivier de Blois, count of Penthievre and viscount of Limoges,
  grandson of Charles de Blois, the unfortunate competitor with John de
  Montfort for the duchy of Bretagne.

Footnote 101:

  Son to the duke of Bourbon.

Footnote 102:

  John de Hangest, lord of Huqueville.

Footnote 103:

  Called in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Liege, by Joannes
  Placentius, Henry lord of Parewis. The name of his son, the elected
  bishop, was Theodoric de Parewis. Pontus Heuterus says, they were
  descended from the ancient dukes of Brabant.

Footnote 104:

  He narrowly escaped being massacred, with all his household, at St
  Tron, by a body of the rabble, who burst into the monastery with that
  intent. His own personal courage alone saved him in that extremity.

Footnote 105:

  Angelus Corrarius, a noble Venetian, elected at Rome after the death
  of Innocent VII. He assumed the name of Gregory XII.

Footnote 106:

  See the Fœdera. The ambassadors were, sir Thomas Erpingham, John
  Cateryk, clerk, and Hugh Mortimer, treasurer to the prince of Wales.

  Other credentials are given in December of this year, wherein the
  bishop of Durham is added to the above ambassadors.

Footnote 107:

  It is not very easy to say to what this chapter can refer. There
  appears to have been no expedition into Scotland at this period, nor
  at any other, to which the facts here related bear the least
  resemblance. Is it entirely a fabrication of Monstrelet? I have looked
  at Hollingshed, Stowe and Henry.

Footnote 108:

  St Jangon—Perth, being probably a french corruption of St John’s Town.

Footnote 109:

  Raoul d’Oquetonville, a knight of Normandy.

Footnote 110:

  The Guillemins were an order of hermits, instituted by Guillaume, duke
  of Guienne and count of Poitou. They succeeded to the church-convent
  of the Blanc-Manteaus, instituted by St Louis.

Footnote 111:

  The name of the adulteress was Marietta d’Enguien,—and the son he had
  by her the famous John, count of Dunois and of Longueville. Sir Aubert
  de Canny was a knight of Picardy.

Footnote 112:

  _Præsenti animo_, says Heuterus.

Footnote 113:

  Consult Bayle and Brantôme for a singular anecdote respecting the
  private reasons which urged the duke to commit this murder.

Footnote 114:

  The monk of St Denis, author of the History of Charles VI. adds the
  following damning clause to his account of this foul transaction:—‘But
  what raised to the highest pitch the horror of the princes at the
  blackness of soul displayed by the duke was, that very shortly before,
  he not only was reconciled but entered into an alliance of brotherly
  love with the duke of Orleans. They had yet more recently confirmed
  it, both by letters and oaths, insomuch that they called God to
  witness it, and received the communion together. They had every
  appearance of an entire union in the conduct of the war which was
  committed to their charge: they had defended one another’s honour from
  the bad success which attended them: it seemed as if they had only one
  interest; and, for a yet greater token of union and of love, the duke
  of Burgundy, hearing that the duke of Orleans was indisposed, visited
  him with all the marks, I do not say of civility but, of tender
  affection, and even accepted an invitation to dine with him the next
  day, being Sunday. The other princes of the blood, knowing all this,
  could not but conceive the most extreme indignation at so horrible a
  procedure: they therefore refused to listen to his excuses,—and the
  next morning, when he came to the parliament-chamber, they forbade him
  entrance.’ See Bayle, Art. ‘Petit.’ The reconciliation here mentioned
  is also alluded to, ch. xliv.

Footnote 115:

  ‘The noble duke of Bourbon,’ says the monk of St Denis, ‘was nominated
  to this embassy, but he generously excused himself from it: he would
  not even remain any longer at court, but demanded leave to retire to
  his own estates; for he loved better to renounce the share which he
  had in the government than consent to compound with the state for the
  murder of his nephew, which made him exclaim loudly, and many times,
  as I have been assured, that he could never look with a favourable eye
  upon the author of a treason so cowardly and so infamous.’ See Bayle,
  _ubi supra_.

Footnote 116:

  This shows how general wooden buildings were still in the 15th
  century.

Footnote 117:

  The titles of Guienne and Acquitaine were always used
  indiscriminately.

Footnote 118:

  Louis, cardinal de Bar, afterwards cardinal of the Twelve Apostles,
  youngest son of Robert, and brother of Edward, dukes of Bar, and heir
  to the duchy after the deaths of all his brothers.

Footnote 119:

  John Petit, professor of theology in the university of Paris, ‘ame
  venale,’ says Bayle, ‘et vendue à l’iniquitè.’ He was reputed a great
  orator, and had been employed twice before to plead on occasions of
  the first importance. The first was in favour of the university
  against some accusations of the cardinal-legate in 1406; the second,
  at Rome before pope Gregory, on the 20th of July 1407, on the subject
  of the king’s proposal for a termination of the schism. The very
  curious performance with which we are here presented was publicly
  condemned by the bishop of Paris and the university as soon as they
  were out of fear from the immediate presence of the duke of Burgundy,
  and burnt by the common hangman. See, in Bayle, further particulars of
  the work and its author.

Footnote 120:

  See the 19th chap. 2 Samuel.

Footnote 121:

  This is a very striking allusion to a particular custom at
  tournaments, and sometimes in actual fight, of which Sainte Palaye
  gives a most interesting account in the ‘Memoires sur l’Ancienne
  Chevalerie.’

  The exclamation, ‘Aux filz des Preux!’ was evidently used to encourage
  young knights to emulate the glories of their ancestors, and to do
  nothing unworthy the noble title given them; and in many instances it
  was attended with the most animating consequences.

  The greatest misfortune attending on a translation of french
  chronicles is the total absence in our language of an expression
  answerable to the french word ‘preux,’ which conveys in itself whole
  volumes of meaning. Spencer ventured to adapt the word in its
  superlative degree to the english tongue. He says somewhere ‘the
  _prowest_ knight alive.’ In fact, the word ‘preux’ may be considered
  as summing up the whole catalogue of knightly virtues in one
  expression.

  The exclamation was sometimes varied,—‘Honneur aux filz des preux!’
  which seems to be the original expression.

Footnote 122:

  Q. ‘Et aussi deux ans paravant que nous estiemes en meur estat?’

Footnote 123:

  Peter, youngest son of Charles the bad, and brother of Charles III.
  king of Navarre. He died without issue 1411.

Footnote 124:

  William count of Tancarville and viscount of Melun, great chamberlain,
  president of the chamber of accounts, great butler, &c. killed at
  Agincourt. His daughter and heiress Margaret, brought the county of
  Tancarville, &c. in marriage, to James de Harcourt.

Footnote 125:

  Peter de Luxembourg St Pol, count of Brienne and Conversano, created
  knight of the Golden Fleece in 1430; John de Luxembourg, his father,
  was brother to Walleran, and son to Guy, count of St Pol; and on the
  death of Walleran, without issue-male in 1415, Peter succeeded to his
  title and estates. His mother was heiress of the illustrious house of
  Brienne, emperors of Constantinople, kings of Jerusalem and dukes of
  Athens, &c. Anghien was one of the titles which she brought to the
  house of Luxembourg.

Footnote 126:

  Fosse and Florennes,—a small town and village in the bishoprick of
  Liege.

Footnote 127:

  This is a mistake. Henry III. king of Castille, dying in December
  1406, was succeeded by his son, John II. an infant of 22 months. The
  battle here mentioned was fought in the ensuing year, D. Alphonso
  Henriques being admiral of Castille. Tarquet (Hist. d’Espagne) says,
  there were only 13 castillian against 23 moorish galleys, and that
  eight of the latter were taken in the engagement. Braquemont was
  rewarded for his extraordinary services by the grant of all conquests
  which he might make in the Canaries. This contingent benefit he
  resigned to his cousin, John de Betancourt, for more solid possessions
  in Normandy; and, in the year 1417, he obtained the high dignity of
  admiral of France.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Transcriber’s note:

Variations in spelling and diacritics have been retained. Outliers have
been changed to conform to common spelling.

Format of chapter headings has been regularised.

Page vii, ‘Frelun’ changed to ‘Fretun,’ “Gilbert de Fretun makes”

Page viii, ‘Tke’ changed to ‘The,’ “The duke of Burgundy”

Page xiv, opening single quote inserted before ‘According,’ “‘According
to the historian”

Page xx, opening single quote inserted before ‘Monstrelet,’ “‘Monstrelet
was married to”

Pages xxx-xxxi, ‘pursuivants’ changed to ‘poursuivants,’ “heralds,
poursuivants, and kings at”

Page xxxii, opening single quote removed before ‘Essais,’ “Essais de
Montaigne”

Page xxxv, closing single quote inserted after ‘moutarde.,’ “plus baveux
qu’un pot à moutarde.’”

Page xxxvii, colon changed to semicolon following ‘them,’ “none of them;
secondly”

Page xlvi, ‘Monstrelent’ changed to ‘Monstrelet,’ “of which Monstrelet,
who”

Page 23, second ‘the’ struck, “contained at the commencement”

Page 49, ‘Luxemburg’ changed to ‘Luxembourg,’ “with the house of
Luxembourg”

Page 56, ‘wth’ changed to ‘with,’ “with one hundred knights”

Page 58, ‘LETTERS’ changed to ‘LETTER,’ “TO THE LETTER OF”

Page 64, full stop inserted after ‘marq,’ “Procopius, marq. of Brand.”

Page 85, ‘appear’ changed to ‘appears,’ “against this prince appears to
be”

Page 89, ‘FRELUN’ changed to ‘FRETUN,’ “GILBERT DE FRETUN MAKES WAR”

Page 94, second ‘long’ struck, “Not long after this event”

Page 94, ‘Morery’ changed to ‘Moreri.’ in footnote, “Moreri.”

Page 115, ‘imbarked’ changed to ‘embarked,’ “in consequence, re-embarked
with his men”

Page 118, ‘cross bows’ changed to ‘cross-bows,’ “of cross-bows and
archers”

Page 120, ‘duk’ changed to ‘duke,’ “Albert IV. duke of Austria”

Page 130, ‘Ginenchy’ changed to ‘Givenchy,’ “lord de Givenchy, with”

Page 155, ‘confidental’ changed to ‘confidential,’ “most confidential
advisers”

Page 187, full stop inserted after ‘passed,’ “all that had passed. The”

Page 198, ‘perpretrated’ changed to ‘perpetrated,’ “been perpetrated by
sir”

Page 198, ‘wa’ changed to ‘was,’ “Sir Aubert de Canny was”

Page 250, closing single quote inserted after ‘slain!’,’ “from being
slain!’’”

Page 251, ‘satisfiac’ changed to ‘satisfac,’ “et alloquens satisfac
servis”

Page 254, ‘that’ changed to ‘That,’ “That the two knights”

Page 261, ‘Policratiri’ changed to ‘Policratici,’ “in libro suo
Policratici”

Page 262, passage beginning ‘Ricardi de media villa’ left as in original
French language edition

Page 275, opening single quote inserted before ‘‘Ex,’ “‘‘Ex illo
arguitur sic”

Page 277, closing single quote deleted after ‘tyrant,’ “blood of a
tyrant.”

Page 287, ‘wordly’ changed to ‘worldly,’ “honours and worldly riches”

Page 310, comma changed to full stop following ‘punishment,’ “by fear of
punishment.”

Page 340, opening single quote inserted before ‘‘Justitia,’ “‘‘Justitia
inquit regnantis”

Page 341, opening single quote inserted before ‘‘Justitia,’ “‘‘Justitia
est constans”

Page 345, ‘Duobis’ changed to ‘Duobus,’ “Duobus existentibus amicis”

Page 353, comma inserted after ‘dilexit,’ “dilexit, æquitatem vidit”

Page 374, ‘Zambre’ changed to ‘Zambry,’ “who slew Zambry without”





*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet Vol. 1 of 13 - containing an account of the cruel civil wars between the - houses of Orleans and Burgundy" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.



Home