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.
| PAGE | |
| The prologue | 1 |
| CHAP. I. | |
| How Charles the well-beloved reigned in France, after he had been crowned at Rheims, in the year thirteen hundred and eighty | [7] |
| CHAP. II. | |
| An esquire of Arragon, named Michel d’Orris, sends challenges to England. The answer he receives from a knight of that country | [13] |
| CHAP. III. | |
| Great pardons granted at Rome | [38] |
| CHAP. IV. | |
| John of Montfort, duke of Brittany, dies. The emperor departs from Paris. Isabella queen of England returns to France | [39] |
| CHAP. V. | |
| The duke of Burgundy, by orders from the king of France, goes into Brittany, and the duke of Orleans to Luxembourg. A quarrel ensues between them | [42] |
| CHAP. VI. | |
| Clement duke of Bavaria is elected emperor of Germany, and afterward conducted with a numerous retinue to Frankfort | [45] |
| CHAP. VII. | |
| Henry of Lancaster, king of England, combats the Percies and Welshmen, who had invaded his kingdom, and defeats them | [47] |
| CHAP. VIII. | |
| John de Verchin, a knight of great renown, and seneschal of Hainault, sends, by his herald, a challenge into divers countries, proposing a deed of arms | [49] |
| CHAP. IX. | |
| The duke of Orleans, brother to the king of France, sends a challenge to the king of England. The answer he receives | [55] |
| CHAP. X. | |
| Waleran count de Saint Pol sends a challenge to the king of England | [84] |
| CHAP. XI. | |
| Concerning the sending of sir James de Bourbon, count de la Marche, and his two brothers, by orders from the king of France, to the assistance of the Welsh, and other matters | [87] |
| CHAP. XII. | |
| The admiral of Brittany, with other lords, fights the English at sea. Gilbert de Fretun makes war against king Henry | [89] |
| CHAP. XIII. | |
| The university of Paris quarrels with sir Charles de Savoisy and with the provost of Paris | [91] |
| CHAP. XIV. | |
| The seneschal of Hainault performs a deed of arms with three others, in the presence of the king of Arragon. The admiral of Brittany undertakes an expedition against England | [95] |
| CHAP. XV. | |
| The marshal of France and the master of the cross-bows, by orders from the king of France, go to England, to the assistance of the prince of Wales | [103] |
| CHAP. XVI. | |
| A powerful infidel, called Tamerlane, invades the kingdom of the king Bajazet, who marches against and fights with him | [106] |
| CHAP. XVII. | |
| Charles king of Navarre negotiates with the king of France, and obtains the duchy of Nemours. Duke Philip of Burgundy makes a journey to Bar-le-Duc and to Brussels | [108] |
| CHAP. XVIII. | |
| The duke of Burgundy dies in the town of Halle, in Hainault. His body is carried to the Carthusian convent at Dijon, in Burgundy | [110] |
| CHAP. XIX. | |
| Waleran count de St Pol lands a large force on the Isle of Wight, to make war against England, but returns without having performed any great deeds | [114] |
| CHAP. XX. | |
| Louis duke of Orleans is sent by the king to the pope at Marseilles. The duke of Bourbon is ordered into Languedoc, and the constable into Acquitaine | [116] |
| CHAP. XXI. | |
| The death of duke Albert, count of Hainault, and of Margaret duchess of Burgundy, daughter to Louis earl of Flanders | [120] |
| CHAP. XXII. | |
| John duke of Burgundy, after the death of the duchess Margaret, is received by the principal towns in Flanders as their lord | [122] |
| CHAP. XXIII. | |
| Duke William count of Hainault presides at a combat for life or death, in his town of Quesnoy, in which one of the champions is slain | [124] |
| CHAP. XXIV. | |
| The count de St Pol marches an army before the castle of Mercq, where the English from Calais meet and discomfit him | [126] |
| CHAP. XXV. | |
| John duke of Burgundy goes to Paris, and causes the dauphin and queen to return thither, whom the duke of Orleans was carrying off, with other matters | [136] |
| CHAP. XXVI. | |
| Duke John of Burgundy obtains from the king of France the government of Picardy. An embassy from England to France. An account of Clugnet de Brabant, knight | [157] |
| CHAP. XXVII. | |
| The war is renewed between the dukes of Bar and Lorraine. Marriages concluded at Compiegne. An alliance between the dukes of Orleans and Burgundy | [161] |
| CHAP. XXVIII. | |
| The duke of Orleans, by the king’s orders, marches a powerful army to Acquitaine, and besieges Blay and le Bourg | [167] |
| CHAP. XXIX. | |
| The duke of Burgundy prevails on the king of France and his council, that he may have permission to assemble men at arms to besiege Calais | [169] |
| CHAP. XXX. | |
| The prelates and clergy of France are summoned to attend the king at Paris, on the subject of an union of the church | [174] |
| CHAP. XXXI. | |
| The Liegeois eject their bishop, John of Bavaria, for refusing to be consecrated as a churchman, according to his promise | [176] |
| CHAP. XXXII. | |
| Anthony duke of Limbourg takes possession of that duchy, and afterward of the town of Maestricht, to the great displeasure of the Liegeois | [179] |
| CHAP. XXXIII. | |
| Ambassadors from pope Gregory arrive at Paris, with bulls from the pope to the king and university of Paris | [182] |
| CHAP. XXXIV. | |
| The duke of Orleans receives the duchy of Acquitaine, as a present, from the king of France. A truce concluded between England and France | [188] |
| CHAP. XXXV. | |
| The prince of Wales, accompanied by his two uncles, marches a considerable force to wage war against the Scots | [189] |
| CHAP. XXXVI. | |
| The duke of Orleans, only brother to Charles VI. the well beloved, king of France, is inhumanly assassinated in the town of Paris | [191] |
| CHAP. XXXVII. | |
| The duchess of Orleans with her youngest son wait on the king in Paris, to make complaint of the cruel murder of the late duke her husband | [206] |
| CHAP. XXXVIII. | |
| The duke of Burgundy assembles a number of his dependants, at Lille in Flanders, to a council, respecting the death of the duke of Orleans. He goes to Amiens, and thence to Paris | [211] |
| CHAP. XXXIX. | |
| The duke of Burgundy offers his justification, for having caused the death of the duke of Orleans, in the presence of the king and his great council | [220] |
| CHAP. XL. | |
| The king of France sends a solemn embassy to the pope. The answer they receive. The pope excommunicates the king and his adherents | [302] |
| CHAP. XLI. | |
| The university of Paris declares against the pope della Luna, in the presence of the king of France. King Louis of Sicily leaves Paris. Of the borgne de la Heuse | [315] |
| CHAP. XLII. | |
| The duke of Burgundy departs from Paris, on account of the affairs of Liege. The king of Spain combats the saracen fleet. The king of Hungary writes to the university of Paris | [320] |
| CHAP. XLIII. | |
| How all the prelates and clergy of France were summoned to Paris. The arrival of the queen and of the duchess of Orleans | [325] |
| CHAP. XLIV. | |
| The duchess-dowager of Orleans and her son cause a public answer to be made, at Paris, to the charges of the duke of Burgundy against the late duke of Orleans, and challenge the duke of Burgundy for his murder | [331] |
THE
LIFE OF MONSTRELET.
Materials for the biography of Monstrelet are still more scanty than for that of Froissart. The most satisfactory account, both of his life and of the continuators of his history, is contained in the Memoires de l’Académie de Belles Lettres, vol. XLIII. p. 535. by M. Dacier.
‘We are ignorant of the birthplace of Enguerrand de Monstrelet, and of the period when he was born, as well as of the names of his parents. All we know is, that he sprang from a noble family,—which he takes care to tell us himself, in his introduction to the first volume of the chronicles; and his testimony is confirmed by a variety of original deeds, in which his name is always accompanied with the distinction of ‘noble man,’ or ‘esquire.[[1]]’
‘According to the historian of the Cambresis, Monstrelet was descended from a noble family settled in Ponthieu from the beginning of the twelfth century, where one of his ancestors, named Enguerrand, possessed the estate of Monstrelet in the year 1125,—but Carpentier does not name his authority for this. A contemporary historian (Matthieu de Couci, of whom I shall have occasion to speak in the course of this essay,) who lived at Peronne, and who seems to have been personally acquainted with Monstrelet, positively asserts that this historian was a native of the county of the Boulonnois, without precisely mentioning the place of his birth. This authority ought to weigh much: besides, Ponthieu and the Boulonnois are so near to each other that a mistake on this point might easily have happened. It results, from what these two writers say, that we may fix his birthplace in Picardy.
‘M. l’abbé Carlier, however, in his history of the duchy of Valois, claims this honour for his province, wherein he has discovered an ancient family of the same name,—a branch of which, he pretends, settled in the Cambresis, and he believes that from this branch sprung Enguerrand de Monstrelet. This opinion is advanced without proof, and the work of Monstrelet itself is sufficient to destroy it. He shows so great an affection for Picardy, in divers parts of his chronicle, that we cannot doubt of his being strongly attached to it: he is better acquainted with it than with any other parts of the realm: he enters into the fullest details concerning it: he frequently gives the names of such picard gentlemen, whether knights or esquires, as had been engaged in any battle, which he omits to do in regard to the nobility of other countries,—in the latter case, naming only the chief commanders. It is almost always from the bailiff of Amiens that he reports the royal edicts, letters missive, and ordinances, &c. which abound in the two first volumes. In short, he speaks of the Picards with so much interest, and relates their gallant actions with such pleasure, that it clearly appears that he treats them like countrymen.
‘Monstrelet was a nobleman then, and a nobleman of Picardy; but we have good reason to suspect that his birth was not spotless. John le Robert, abbot of St Aubert in Cambray from the year 1432 to that of 1469, and author of an exact journal of every thing that passed during his time in the town of Cambray and its environs, under the title of ‘Memoriaux,’[[2]] says plainly, ‘qu’il fut né de bas,’—which term, according to the glossary of du Cange, and in the opinion of learned genealogists, constantly means a natural son; for at this period, bastards were acknowledged according to the rank of their fathers. Monstrelet, therefore, was not the less noble; and the same John le Robert qualifies him, two lines higher, with the titles of ‘noble man’ and ‘esquire,’ to which he adds an eulogium, which I shall hereafter mention,—because, at the same time that it does honour to Monstrelet, it confirms the opinion I had formed of his character when attentively reading his work.
‘My researches to discover the precise year of his birth have been fruitless. I believe, however, it may be safely placed prior to the close of the fourteenth century; for, besides speaking of events at the beginning of the fifteenth as having happened in his time, he states positively, in his introduction, that he had been told of the early events in his book (namely, from the year 1400,) by persons worthy of credit, who had been eye-witnesses of them. To this proof, or to this deduction, I shall add, that under the year 1415, he says, that he heard (at the time) of the anger of the count de Charolois, afterwards Philippe le bon duke of Burgundy, because his governors would not permit him to take part in the battle of Azincourt. I shall also add, that under the year 1420, he speaks of the homage which John duke of Burgundy paid the king of the Romans for the counties of Burgundy and of Alost. It cannot be supposed that he would have inquired into such particulars, or that any one would have taken the trouble to inform him of them if he had not been of a certain age, such as twenty or twenty-five years old, which would fix the date of his birth about 1390 or 1395.
‘No particulars of his early years are known, except that he evinced, when young, a love for application, and a dislike to indolence. The quotations from Sallust, Livy, Vegetius, and other ancient authors, that occur in his chronicles, show that he must have made some progress in latin literature. Whether his love for study was superior to his desire of military glory, or whether a weakly constitution or some other reason, prevented him from following the profession of arms, I do not find that he yielded to the reigning passion of his age, when the names of gentleman and of soldier were almost synonimous.
‘The wish to avoid indolence by collecting the events of his time, which he testifies in the introduction to his chronicles, proves, I think, that he was but a tranquil spectator of them. Had he been an Armagnac or a Burgundian, he would not have had occasion to seek for solitary occupations; but what proves more strongly that Monstrelet was not of either faction is the care he takes to inform his readers of the rank, quality, and often of the names of the persons from whose report he writes, without ever boasting of his own testimony. In his whole work, he speaks but once from his own knowledge, when he relates the manner in which the Pucelle d’Orléans was made prisoner before Compiégne; but he does not say, that he was present at the skirmish when this unfortunate heroine was taken: he gives us to understand the contrary, and that he was only present at the conversation of the prisoner with the duke of Burgundy,—for he had accompanied Philip on this expedition, perhaps in quality of historian. And why may not we presume that he may have done so on other occasions, to be nearer at hand to collect the real state of facts which he intended to relate?
‘However this may be, it is certain that he was resident in Cambray, when he composed his history, and passed there the remainder of his life. He was indeed fixed there, as I shall hereafter state, by different important employments, each of which required the residence of him who enjoyed them. From his living in Cambray, La Croix du Maine has concluded, without further examination, that he was born there, and this mistake has been copied by other writers.
‘Monstrelet was married to Jeanne de Valbuon, or Valhuon, and had several children by her, although only two of them were known,—a daughter called Bona, married to Martin de Beulaincourt, a gentleman of that country, surnamed the Bold, and a son of the name of Pierre. It is probable, that Bona was married, or of age, prior to the year 1438,—for in the register of the officiality of Cambray, towards the end of that year, is an entry, that Enguerrand de Monstrelet was appointed guardian to his young son Pierre, without any mention of his daughter Bona. It follows, therefore, that Monstrelet was a widower at that period.
‘In the year 1436, Monstrelet was nominated to the office of Lieutenant du Gavènier of the Cambresis, conjointly with Le Bon de Saveuses, master of the horse to the duke of Burgundy, as appears from the letters patent to this effect, addressed by the duke to his nephew the count d’Estampes, of the date of the 13th May in this year, and which are preserved in the chartulary of the church of Cambray.
‘It is even supposed that Monstrelet had for some time enjoyed this office,—for it is therein declared, that he shall continue in the receipt of the Gavène, as he has heretofore done, until this present time. ‘Gave,’ or ‘Gavène,’ (I speak from the papers I have just quoted,) signifies in Flemish, a gift, or a present. It was an annual due payable to the duke of Burgundy, by the subjects of the churches in the Cambresis, for his protection of them as earl of Flanders. From the name of the tribute was formed that of Gavènier, which was often given to the duke of Burgundy, and the nobleman he appointed his deputy was styled Lieutenant du Gavènier. I have said ‘the nobleman whom he appointed,’ because in the list of those lieutenants, which the historian of Cambray has published, there is not one who has not shown sufficient proofs of nobility. Such was, therefore, the employment with which Monstrelet was invested; and shortly after, another office was added to it, that of Bailiff to the chapter of Cambray, for which he took the oaths on the 20th of June, 1436, and entered that day on its duties. He kept this place until the beginning of January, in the year 1440, when another was appointed.
‘I have mentioned Pierre de Monstrelet, his son; and it is probable that he is the person who was made a knight of St John of Jerusalem in the month of July, in 1444, although the acts of the chapter of Cambray do not confirm this opinion, nor specify the Christian name of the new knight by that of Pierre. It is only declared in the register, that the canons, as an especial favour, on the 6th of July, permitted Enguerrand de Monstrelet, esquire, to have his son invested with the order of St John of Jerusalem, on Sunday the 19th of the same month, in the choir of their church.
‘The respect and consideration which he had now acquired, gained him the dignity of governor of Cambray, for which he took the usual oath on the 9th of November; and on the 12th of March, in the following year, he was nominated bailiff of Wallaincourt. He retained both of these places until his death, which happened about the middle of July, in the year 1453. This date cannot be disputed: it was discovered in the 17th century by John le Carpentier, who has inserted it in his history of the Cambresis. But in consequence of little attention being paid to this work, or because the common opinion has been blindly followed, that Monstrelet had continued his history to the death of the duke of Burgundy in 1467, this date was not considered as true until the publication of an extract from the register of the Cordeliers in Cambray, where he was buried.[[3]] Although this extract fully establishes the year and month when Monstrelet died, I shall insert here what relates to it from the ‘Memoriaux’ of John le Robert, before mentioned, because they contain some circumstances that are not to be found in the register of the Cordeliers. When several years of his history are to be retrenched from an historian of such credit, authorities for so doing cannot be too much multiplied. This is the text of the abbot of St Aubert, and I have put in italics the words that are not in the register:
“The 20th day of July, in the year 1453, that honourable and noble man Enguerrand de Monstrelet, esquire, governor of Cambray, and bailiff of Wallaincourt, departed this life, and was buried at the Cordeliers of Cambray, according to his desire. He was carried thither on a bier covered with a mat, clothed in the frock of a cordelier friar, his face uncovered: six flambeaux and three chirons, each weighing three quarters of a pound, were around the bier, whereon was a sheet thrown over the cordelier frock. Il fut nez de bas, and was a very honourable and peaceable man. He chronicled the wars which took place in his time in France, Artois, Picardy, England, Flanders, and those of the Gantois against their lord duke Philip. He died fifteen or sixteen days before peace was concluded, which took place toward the end of July, in the year 1453.”
‘I shall observe, by the way, that the person who drew up this register assigns two different dates for the death of Monstrelet, and in this he has been followed by John le Robert. Both of them say, that Monstrelet died on the 20th of July,—and, a few lines farther, add, that he died about sixteen days before peace was concluded between duke Philip and Ghent, which was signed about the end of the month: it was, in fact, concluded on the 31st: now, from twenty to thirty-one, we can only reckon eleven days,—and I therefore think, that one of these dates must mean the day of his death, and the other that of his funeral,—namely, that Monstrelet died on the 15th and was buried on the 20th. The precise date of his death is, however, of little importance: it is enough for us to be assured, that it took place in the month of July, in 1453, and consequently that the thirteen last years of his history, printed under his name, cannot have been written by him. I shall examine this first continuation of his history, and endeavour to ascertain the time when Monstrelet ceased to write,—and likewise attempt to discover whether, during the years immediately preceding his death, some things have not been inserted that do not belong to him.
‘Before I enter upon this discussion of his work, I shall conclude what I have to say of him personally, according to what the writer of the register of the Cordeliers and the abbot of St Aubert testify of him. He was, says each of them, ‘a very honourable and peaceable man;’ expressions that appear simple at first sight, but which contain a real eulogium, if we consider the troublesome times in which Monstrelet lived, the places he held, the interest he must have had sometimes to betray the truth in favour of one of the factions which then divided France, and caused the revolutions the history of which he has published during the life of the principal actors. I have had more than one occasion to ascertain that the two above-mentioned writers, in thus painting his character, have not flattered him.
‘The Chronicles of Monstrelet commence on Easter-day,[[4]] in the year 1400, when those of Froissart end, and extend to the death of the duke of Burgundy in the year 1467. I have before stated, that the thirteen last years of his chronicle were written by an unknown author,—and this matter I shall discuss at the end of this essay. In the printed as well as in the manuscript copies, the chronicle is divided into three volumes, and each volume into chapters. The first of these divisions is evidently by the author: his prologues at the head of the first and second volumes, in which he marks the extent of each conformable to the number of years therein contained, leave no room to doubt of it.
‘His work is called Chronicles; but we must not, however, consider this title in the sense commonly attached to it, which merely conveys the idea of simple annals. The chronicles of Monstrelet are real history, wherein, notwithstanding its imperfections and omissions, are found all the characteristics of historical writing. He traces events to their source, developes the causes, and traces them with the minutest details; and what renders these chronicles infinitely precious is, his never-failing attention to report all edicts, declarations, summonses, letters, negotiations, treaties, &c. as justificatory proofs of the truth of the facts he relates.
‘After the example of Froissart, he does not confine himself to events that passed in France: he embraces, with almost equal detail, the most remarkable circumstances which happened during his time in Flanders, England, Scotland and Ireland. He relates, but more succinctly, whatsoever he had been informed of as having passed in Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland: in short, in the different european states. Some events, particularly the war of the Saracens against the king of Cyprus, are treated at greater length than could have been expected in a general history.
‘Although it appears that the principal object of Monstrelet in writing this history was to preserve the memory of those wars which in his time, desolated France and the adjoining countries, to bring into public notice such personages as distinguished themselves by actions of valour in battles, assaults, skirmishes, duels and tournaments,—and to show to posterity that his age had produced as many heroes as any of the preceding ones. He does not fail to give an account of such great political or ecclesiastical events as took place during the period of which he seemed only inclined to write the military history. He relates many important details respecting the councils of Pisa, Constance, and of Basil, of which the authors who have written the history of these councils ought to have availed themselves, to compare them with the other materials of which they made use.
‘There is no historian who does not seek to gain the confidence of his readers, by first explaining in a preface all that he has done to acquire the fullest information respecting the events he is about to relate. All protest that they have not omitted any possible means to ascertain the truth of facts, and that they have spared neither time nor trouble to collect the minutest details concerning them. Without doubt, great deductions must be made from such protestations: those of Monstrelet, however, are accompanied with circumstances which convince us that a dependance may be placed on them. Would he have dared to tell his contemporaries, who could instantly have detected a falsehood had he imposed on them, that he had been careful to consult on military affairs those who, from their employments, must have been eye-witnesses of the actions that he describes? that on other matters he had consulted such as, from their situations, must have been among the principal actors, and the great lords of both parties, whom he had often to address, to engage in conversation on these events, at divers times, to confront them, as it were, with themselves? On objects of less importance, such as feasts, justs, tournaments, he had made his inquiries from heralds, poursuivants, and kings at arms, who, from their office, must have been appointed judges of the lists, or assistants, at such entertainments and pastimes. For greater security, it was always more than a year after any event had happened, before he began to arrange his materials and insert them in his chronicle. He waited until time should have destroyed what may have been exaggerated in the accounts of such events, or should have confirmed their truth.
‘An infinite number of traits throughout his work proves the fidelity of his narration. He marks the difference between facts of which he is perfectly sure and those of which he is doubtful: if he cannot produce his proof, he says so, and does not advance more. When he thinks that he has omitted some details which he ought to have known, he frankly owns that he has forgotten them. For instance, when speaking of the conversation between the duke of Burgundy and the Pucelle d’Orléans, at which he was present, he recollects that some circumstances have escaped his memory, and avows that he does not remember them.
‘When after having related any event, he gains further knowledge concerning it, he immediately informs his readers of it, and either adds to or retrenches from his former narration, conformably to the last information he had received. Froissart acted in a similar manner; and Montaigne praises him for it. ‘The good Froissart,’ says he, ‘proceeds in his undertaking with such frank simplicity that having committed a mistake he is no way afraid of owning it, and of correcting it at the moment he is sensible of it.’[[5]] We ought certainly to feel ourselves obliged to these two writers for their attention in returning back to correct any mistakes; but we should have been more thankful to them if they had been pleased to add their corrections to the articles which had been mistated, instead of scattering their amendments at hazard, as it were, and leaving the readers to connect and compare them with the original article as well as they can.
‘This is not the only defect common to both these historians. The greater part of the chronological mistakes, which have been so ably corrected by M. de Sainte Palaye in Froissart, are to be found in Monstrelet; and what deserves particularly to be noticed, to avoid falling into errors, is, that each of them, when passing from the history of one country to another, introduces events of an earlier date, without ever mentioning it, and intermix them in the same chapter, as if they had taken place in the same period,—but Monstrelet has the advantage of Froissart in the correctness of counting the years, which he invariably begins on Easter-day and closes them on Easter-eve.
‘To chronological mistakes must be added the frequent disfiguring of proper names,—more especially foreign ones, which are often so mangled that it is impossible to decipher them. M. du Cange has corrected from one thousand to eleven hundred on the margin of his copy of the edition of 1572, which is now in the imperial library at Paris, and would be of great assistance, should another edition of Monstrelet be called for.[[6]] Names of places are not more clearly written, excepting those in Flanders and Picardy, with which, of course, he was well acquainted. We know not whether it be through affectation or ignorance that he calls many towns by their latin names, frenchifying the termination: for instance, Aix-la-Chapelle, Aquisgranie; Oxford, Oxonie,—and several others in the like manner.
‘These defects are far from being repaid, as they are in Froissart, by the agreeableness of the narration: that of Monstrelet is heavy, monotonous, weak and diffuse. Sometimes a whole page is barely sufficient for him to relate what would have been better told in six lines; and it is commonly on the least important facts that he labours the most.
‘The second chapter of the first volume, consisting of thirteen pages, contains only a challenge from a spanish esquire, accepted by an esquire of England, which, after four years of letters and messages, ends in nothing. The ridiculousness of so pompous a narration had struck Rabelais, who says, at page 158 of his third volume,—‘In reading this tedious detail, (which he calls a little before le tant long, curieux et fâcheux conte) we should imagine that it was the beginning, or occasion, of some severe war, or of a great revolution of kingdoms; but at the end of the tale we laugh at the stupid champion, the Englishman, and Enguerrand their scribe, plus baveux qu’un pot à moutarde.’[[7]]
‘Monstrelet employs many pages to report the challenges sent by the duke of Orleans, brother to king Charles VI., to Henry IV. king of England,—challenges which are equally ridiculous with the former, and which had a similar termination. When he meets with any event that particularly regards Flanders or Picardy, he does not omit the smallest circumstance: the most minute and most useless seem to him worth preserving,—and this same man, so prolix when it were to be wished he was concise, omits, for the sake of brevity, as he says, the most interesting details. This excuse he repeats more than once, for neglecting to enlarge on facts far more interesting than the quarrels of the Flemings and Picards. When speaking of those towns in Champagne and Brie which surrendered to Charles VII. immediately after his coronation, he says, ‘As for these surrenders, I omit the particular detail of each for the sake of brevity.’ In another place, he says, ‘Of these reparations, for brevity sake, I shall not make mention.’ These reparations were the articles of the treaty of peace concluded in 1437, between the duke of Burgundy and the townsmen of Bruges.
‘I have observed an omission of another sort, but which must be attributed solely to the copyists,—for I suspect them of having lost a considerable part of a chapter in the second volume. The head of this chapter is, ‘The duke of Orleans returns to the duke of Burgundy,’—and the beginning of it describes the meeting of the two princes in the town of Hêdin in 1441 (1442). They there determine to meet again almost immediately in the town of Nevers, ‘with many others of the great princes and lords of the kingdom of France,’ and at the end of eight days they separate; the one taking the road through Paris for Blois, and the other going into Burgundy.
‘This recital consists of about twenty lines, and then we read, ‘Here follows a copy of the declaration sent to king Charles of France by the lords assembled at Nevers, with the answers returned thereto by the members of the great council, and certain requests made by them.’ This title is followed by the declaration he has mentioned, and the answer the king made to the ambassadors who had presented it to him.—Now, can it be conceived that Monstrelet would have been silent as to the object of the assembly of nobles? or not have named some of those who had been present? and that, after having mentioned Nevers as the place of meeting, he should have passed over every circumstance respecting it, to the declarations and resolutions that had there been determined upon? There are two reasons for concluding that part of this chapter must be wanting: first, when Monstrelet returns to his narration, after having related the king’s answer to the assembled lords, he speaks as having before mentioned them, ‘the aforesaid lords,’ and I have just noticed that he names none of them; secondly, when in the next chapter he relates the expedition to Tartas, which was to decide on the fate of Guienne, as having before mentioned it, ‘of which notice has been taken in another place,’ it must have been in the preceding chapter,—but it is not there spoken of, nor in any other place.
‘If the numerous imperfections of Monstrelet are not made amends for, as I have said, by the beauty of his style, we must allow that they are compensated by advantages of another kind. His narration is diffuse, but clear,—and his style heavy, but always equal. He rarely offers any reflections,—and they are always short and judicious. The temper of his mind is particularly manifested by the circumstance that we do not find in his work any ridiculous stories of sorcery, magic, astrology, or any of those absurd prodigies which disgrace the greater part of the historians of his time. The goodness of his heart also displays itself in the traits of sensibility which he discovers in his recitals of battles, sieges, and of towns won by storm: he seems then to rise superior to himself,—and his style acquires strength and warmth. When he relates the preparations for, and the commencement of, a war, his first sentiment is to deplore the evils by which he foresees that the poorer ranks will soon be overwhelmed. Whilst he paints the despair of the wretched inhabitants of the country, pillaged and massacred by both sides, we perceive that he is really affected by his subject, and writes from his feelings. The writer of the cordelier register and the abbot of St Aubert, have not, therefore, said too much, when they called him, ‘a very honest and peaceable man.’ It appears, in fact, that benevolence was the marked feature of his character, to which I am not afraid to add the love of truth.
‘I know that in respect to this last virtue, his reputation is not spotless, and that he has been commonly charged with partiality for the house of Burgundy, and for that faction. Lancelot Voesin de la Popeliniere is, I believe, the first who brought this accusation against him. ‘Monstrelet,’ says he, ‘has scarcely shown himself a better narrator than Froissart,—but a little more attached to truth, and less of a party man.’ Denis Godefroy denies this small advantage over Froissart which had been conceded to him by La Popeliniere. ‘Both of them,’ he says, ‘incline toward the Burgundians.’
‘Le Gendre in his critical examination of the french historians, repeats the same thing, but in more words. ‘Monstrelet,’ he writes, ‘too plainly discovers his intentions of favouring, when he can, the dukes of Burgundy and their friends.’ Many authors have adopted some of these opinions, more or less disadvantageous to Monstrelet; hence has been formed an almost universal prejudice, that he has, in his work, often disfigured the truth in favour of the dukes of Burgundy.
‘I am persuaded that these different opinions, advanced without proof, are void of foundation; and I have noticed facts, which having happened during the years of which Monstrelet writes the history, may, from the manner in which he narrates them, enable us to judge whether he was capable of sacrificing truth to his attachment to the house of Burgundy.
‘In 1407, doctor John Petit, having undertaken to justify the assassination of the duke of Orleans by orders from the duke of Burgundy, sought to diminish the horror of such a deed, by tarnishing the memory of the murdered prince with the blackest imputations. Monstrelet, however, does not hesitate to say, that many persons thought these imputations false and indecent. He reports, in the same chapter, the divers opinions to which this unfortunate event gave rise, and does not omit to say, that ‘many great lords, and other wise men, were much astonished that the king should pardon the burgundian prince, considering that the crime was committed on the person of the duke of Orleans.’ We perceive, in reading this passage, that Monstrelet was of the same opinion with the ‘other wise men.’
‘In 1408, Charles VI. having insisted that the children of the late duke of Orleans should be reconciled to the duke of Burgundy, they were forced to consent.—‘Sire, since you are pleased to command us, we grant his request;’ and Monstrelet lets it appear that he considers their compliance as a weakness, which he excuses on account of their youth, and the state of neglect they were in after the death of their mother the duchess of Orleans, who had sunk under her grief on not being able to avenge the murder of her husband. ‘To say the truth, in consequence of the death of their father, and also from the loss of their mother, they were greatly wanting in advice and support.’ He likewise relates, at the same time, the conversations held by different great lords on this occasion, in whom sentiments of humanity and respect for the blood-royal were not totally extinguished. ‘That henceforward it would be no great offence to murder a prince of the blood, since those who had done so were so easily acquitted, without making any reparation, or even begging pardon.’ A determined partisan of the house of Burgundy would have abstained from transmitting such a reflection to posterity.
‘I shall mention another fact, which will be fully sufficient for the justification of the historian. None of the writers of his time have spoken with such minuteness of the most abominable of the actions of the duke of Burgundy: I mean that horrid conspiracy which he had planned in 1415, by sending his emissaries to Paris to intrigue and bring it to maturity, and the object of which was nothing less than to seize and confine the king, and to put him to death, with the queen, the chancellor of France, the queen of Sicily, and numberless others. Monstrelet lays open, without reserve, all the circumstances of the conspiracy: he tells us by whom it was discovered: he names the principal conspirators, some of whom were beheaded, others drowned.—He adds, ‘However, those nobles whom the duke of Burgundy had sent to Paris returned as secretly and as quietly as they could without being arrested or stopped.’
‘An historian devoted to the duke of Burgundy would have treated this affair more tenderly, and would not have failed to throw the whole blame of the plot on the wicked partisans of the duke, without saying expressly that they had acted under his directions and by his orders contained ‘in credential letters signed with his hand.’ It is rather singular, that Juvénal des Ursins, who cannot be suspected of being a Burgundian, should, in his history of Charles VI. have merely related this event, and that very summarily, without attributing any part of it to the duke of Burgundy, whom he does not even name.
‘The impartiality of Monstrelet is not less clear in the manner in which he speaks of the leaders of the two factions, Burgundians or Armagnacs, who are praised or blamed without exception of persons, according to the merit of their actions. The excesses which both parties indulged in are described with the same strength of style, and in the same tone of indignation. In 1411, when Charles VI. in league with the duke of Burgundy, ordered, by an express edict, that all of the Orleans party should be attacked as enemies throughout the kingdom, ‘it was a pitiful thing,’ says the historian, ‘to hear daily miserable complaints of the persecutions and sufferings of individuals.’ He is no way sparing of his expressions in this instance, and they are still stronger in the recital which immediately follows: ‘Three thousand combatants marched to Bicêtre, a very handsome house belonging to the duke of Berry (who was of the Orleans party),—and from hatred to the said duke, they destroyed and villainously demolished the whole, excepting the walls.’
‘The interest which Monstrelet here displays for the duke of Berry, agrees perfectly with that which he elsewhere shows for Charles VI. He must have had a heart truly French to have painted in the manner he has done the state of debasement and neglect to which the court of France was reduced in 1420, compared with the pompous state of the king of England: he is affected with the humiliation of the one, and hurt at the magnificence of the other, which formed so great a contrast. ‘The king of France was meanly and poorly served, and was scarcely visited on this day by any but some old courtiers and persons of low degree, which must have wounded all true french hearts.’ And a few lines farther, he says, ‘With regard to the state of the king of England, it is impossible to recount its great magnificence and pomp, or to describe the grand entertainments and attendance in his palace.’
‘This idea had made such an impression on him that he returns again to it on occasion of the solemn feast of Whitsuntide, which the king and queen of England came to celebrate in Paris, in 1422. ‘On this day, the king and queen of England held a numerous and magnificent court,—but king Charles remained with his queen at the palace of St Pol, neglected by all, which caused great grief to numbers of loyal Frenchmen, and not without cause.’
‘These different traits, thus united, form a strong conclusion, or I am deceived, that Monstrelet has been too lightly charged with partiality for the house of Burgundy, and with disaffection to the crown of France.
‘I have hitherto only spoken of the two first volumes of the chronicles of Monstrelet; the third, which commences in April 1444, I think should be treated of separately, because I scarcely see any thing in it that may be attributed to him. In the first place, the thirteen last years, from his death in 1453 to that of the duke of Burgundy in 1467, which form the contents of the greater part of this volume, cannot have been written by him. Secondly, the nine preceding years, of which Monstrelet, who was then living, may have been the author, seem to me to be written by another hand. We do not find in this part either his style or manner of writing: instead of that prolixity which has been so justly found fault with, the whole is treated with the dryness of the poorest chronicle: it is an abridged journal of what passed worthy of remembrance in Europe, but more particularly in France, from 1444 to 1453,—in which the events are arranged methodically, according to the days on which they happened, without other connexion than that of the dates.
‘Each of the two first volumes is preceded by a prologue, which serves as an introduction to the history of the events that follow: the third has neither prologue nor preface. In short, with the exception of the sentence passed on the duke of Alençon, there are not, in this volume, any justificatory pieces, negotiations, letters, treaties, ordinances, which constitute the principal merit of the two preceding ones. It would, however, have been very easy for the compiler to have imitated Monstrelet in this point, for the greater part of these pieces are reported by the chronicler of St Denis, whom he often quotes in his first fifty pages. I am confirmed in this idea by having examined into the truth of different events, when I found that the compiler had scarcely done more than copy, word for word,—sometimes from the Grandes Chroniques of France,—at others, though rarely, from the history of Charles VII. by Jean Chartier, and, still more rarely, from the chronicler of Arras, of whom he borrows some facts relative to the history of Flanders.[[8]]
‘To explain this resemblance, it cannot be said that the editors of the Grandes Chroniques have copied Monstrelet, for the Grandes Chroniques are often quoted in this third volume, which consequently must have been written posterior to them. There would be as little foundation to suppose that Monstrelet had copied them himself, and inserted only such facts as more particularly belonged to the history of the dukes of Burgundy. The difference of the plan and execution of the two first volumes and of this evidently points out another author. But should any doubt remain, it will soon be removed by the evidence of a contemporary writer, who precisely fixes on the year 1444 as the conclusion of the labours of Monstrelet.
‘Matthieu d’Escouchy, or de Couci, author of a history published by Denis Godefroy, at the end of that of Charles VII. by Chartier, thus expresses himself in the prologue at the beginning of his work: ‘I shall commence my said history from the 20th day of May, in the year 1444, when the last book, which that noble and valiant man Enguerrand de Monstrelet chronicled in his time, concludes. He was a native of the county of the Boulonnois, and at the time of his death was governor and citizen of Cambray, whose works will be in renown long after his decease. It is my intention to take up the history where the late Enguerrand left it,—namely, at the truces which were made and concluded at Tours, in Touraine, in the month of May, on the day and year before mentioned, between the most excellent, most powerful, Charles, the well-served king of France, of most noble memory, seventh of the name, and Henry king of England his nephew.’
‘These truces conclude the last chapter of the second volume of Monstrelet: it is there where the real chronicles end; and he has improperly been hitherto considered as the author of the history of the nine years that preceded his death, for I cannot suppose that the evidence of Matthieu de Coucy will be disputed. He was born at Quesnoy, in Hainault, and living at Peronne while Monstrelet resided at Cambray. The proximity of the places must have enabled him to be fully informed of every thing that concerned the historian and his work.
‘If we take from Monstrelet what has been improperly attributed to him, it is but just to restore that which legally belongs to him. According to the register of the Cordeliers of Cambray, and the Memoriaux of Jean le Robert, he had written the history of the war of the Ghent-men against the duke of Burgundy. Now the events of this war, which began in the month of April 1452, and was not terminated before the end of July in the following year, are related with much minuteness in the third volume.[[9]] After the authorities above quoted, we cannot doubt that Monstrelet was the author, if not of the whole account, at least of the greater part of it: I say ‘part of it,’ for he could not have narrated the end of this war, since peace between the Ghent-men and their prince was not concluded until the 31st July, and Monstrelet was buried on the 20th. It is not even probable that he would have had time to collect the events that happened at the beginning of the month, unless we suppose that he died suddenly; whence I think it may be conjectured, that Monstrelet ceased to write towards the end of June, when the castle of Helsebecque was taken by the duke of Burgundy, and that the history of the war was written by another hand, who may have arranged the materials which Monstrelet had collected, but had not reduced to order.
‘There seems here to arise a sort of contradiction between Matthieu de Coucy, who fixes, as I have said, the conclusion of Monstrelet’s writing at the year 1444, and the register of the Cordeliers, which agrees with the Memoriaux of Jean le Robert; but this contradiction will vanish, if we reflect that the history of the revolt of Ghent, in 1453, is an insulated matter, having no connexion with the history of the reign of Charles VII. and that it cannot be considered as forming part of the two first volumes, from which it is detached by a space of eight years. Matthieu de Coucy, therefore, who may not, perhaps, have known of this historical fragment, was entitled to say, that the chronicles written by Monstrelet ended at the year 1444.
‘The continuator of these chronicles having reported the conclusion of the war between the Ghent-men and their prince, then copies indiscriminately from the Grandes Chroniques, or from Jean Chartier, with more or less exactness, as may readily be discovered on collating them, as I have done. He only adds some facts relative to the history of Burgundy, and carries the history to the death of Charles VII. This part, which is more interesting than the former, because the writer has added to the chronicles facts in which they were deficient, is more defective in the arrangement. Several events that relate to the general history of the realm are told twice over, and in succession,—first in an abridged state, and then more minutely,—and sometimes with differences so great that it seems impossible that both should have been written by the same person.[[10]]
‘This defect, however, we cannot without injustice attribute to the continuator of Monstrelet,—for it is clearly perceptible that he only treats of the general history of France in as far as it is connected with that of Burgundy, and we cannot suppose that he would repeat twice events foreign to the principal object of his work. It is much more natural to believe that the abridged accounts are his, and that the first copiers, thinking they were too short, have added the whole detail of these articles from the Grandes Chroniques or from Jean Chartier, whence he had been satisfied with merely making extracts.
‘From the death of Charles VII. in 1461, to that of Philip duke of Burgundy, we meet with no more of these repetitions. The historian (for he then deserves the name) leaves off copying the Chronicles, and advances without a guide: consequently, he is very frequently bewildered. I shall not attempt to notice his faults, which are the same with those of Monstrelet, and I could but repeat what I have said before. There is, however, one which is peculiar to him, and which pervades the whole work: it is an outrageous partiality for the house of Burgundy.
‘We may excuse him for having written, under the title of a General History of France, the particular history of Burgundy, and for having only treated of that of France incidentally, in as far as it interested the burgundian princes. We may, indeed, more readily pardon him for having painted Charles VII. as a voluptuous monarch, and Louis XI. sometimes as a tyrant, at others as a deep and ferocious politician, holding in contempt the most sacred engagements. But the fidelity of history required that he should not have been silent as to the vices of the duke of Burgundy and his son, who plunged France into an abyss of calamities, and that his predilection for these two princes should not burst forth in every page.
‘The person who continued this first part of the chronicles of Monstrelet has been hitherto unknown, but I believe a lucky accident has enabled me to discover him. Dom Berthod, a learned benedictine monk of the congregation of St Vanne, having employed himself for these many years in searching the libraries and ancient rolls in Flanders for facts relative to our history, has made a report with extracts from numerous manuscripts, of which we had only vague ideas. He has had the goodness to communicate some of them to me, and among others the chronicle of Jacques du Clercq,[[11]] which begins at 1448, and ends, like the continuator of Monstrelet, at the death of the duke of Burgundy in 1467. In order to give a general idea of the contents of the work, D. Berthod has copied, with the utmost exactness, the table of chapters composed by Jacques du Clercq himself, as he tells us in his prologue. I have compared this table and the extracts with the continuation of Monstrelet, and have observed such a similarity, particularly from the year 1453 to 1467, that I think it impossible for any two writers to be so exactly the same unless one had copied after the other.
‘As we do not possess the whole of this chronicle, I can but offer this as a very probable conjecture, which will be corroborated, when it is considered that Jacques du Clercq and the continuator of Monstrelet lived in the same country. The first resided in Arras; and by the minute details the second enters into concerning Flanders, we may judge that he was an inhabitant of that country. Some villages burnt, or events still less interesting, and unknown beyond the places where they happened, are introduced into his history. In like manner, we should discover without difficulty (if it were otherwise unknown), that the editor of the Grandes Chroniques was a monk of the abbey of St Denis, when he gravely relates, as an important event, that on such a day the scullion of the abbey was found dead in his bed,—and that a peasant of Clignancourt beat his wife until she died.
‘To these divers relations between the two writers, we must add the period when they wrote. We see by the preface of Jacques du Clercq, that he composed his history shortly after the death of Philip duke of Burgundy in 1467; and the continuator of Monstrelet, when speaking of the arrest of the bastard de Rubempré in Holland, whither he had been sent by Louis XI. says, that the bastard was a prisoner at the time he was writing, ‘at the end of February 1468, before Easter;’ that is to say, that he was at work on his history in the month of February 1469, according to our mode of beginning the year.
‘Whether this continuation be an abridgment of the chronicle of Jacques du Clercq or an original chronicle, it seems very clear that Monstrelet has been tried by the merits of this third volume, and that his reputation of being a party-writer has been grounded on the false opinion that he was the author of it.
‘I cannot close this essay without expressing my surprise that no one, before the publication of the article respecting Monstrelet in the register of the Cordeliers, had suspected that part, at least, of this third volume, which has been attributed to him, could not have come from his hand. Any attentive reader must have been struck with the passage where the continuator relates the death of Charles duke of Orleans, when, after recapitulating in a few words the misfortunes which the murder of his father had caused to France, he refers the reader for more ample details to the history ‘of Monstrelet:’ as ‘may be seen,’ says he, ‘in the Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet.’
‘I shall not notice the other continuations, which carry the history to the reign of Francis I.; for this article has been discussed by M. de Foncemagne, in an essay read before the Academy in 1742;[[12]] nor the different editions of Monstrelet. M. le Duchat, in his ‘Remarques sur divers Sujets de Littérature,’ and the editor of ‘La nouvelle Bibliothéque des Historiens de France,’ have left nothing more to be said on the subject.’