THE
CHRONICLES
OF
ENGUERRAND DE MONSTRELET.

THE

CHRONICLES

OF

ENGUERRAND DE MONSTRELET;

CONTAINING

AN ACCOUNT OF THE CRUEL CIVIL WARS BETWEEN THE HOUSES OF

ORLEANS AND BURGUNDY;

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.

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.