[106]. See the Fœdera. The ambassadors were, sir Thomas Erpingham, John Cateryk, clerk, and Hugh Mortimer, treasurer to the prince of Wales.
Other credentials are given in December of this year, wherein the bishop of Durham is added to the above ambassadors.
[107]. It is not very easy to say to what this chapter can refer. There appears to have been no expedition into Scotland at this period, nor at any other, to which the facts here related bear the least resemblance. Is it entirely a fabrication of Monstrelet? I have looked at Hollingshed, Stowe and Henry.
[108]. St Jangon—Perth, being probably a french corruption of St John’s Town.
[109]. Raoul d’Oquetonville, a knight of Normandy.
[110]. The Guillemins were an order of hermits, instituted by Guillaume, duke of Guienne and count of Poitou. They succeeded to the church-convent of the Blanc-Manteaus, instituted by St Louis.
[111]. The name of the adulteress was Marietta d’Enguien,—and the son he had by her the famous John, count of Dunois and of Longueville. Sir Aubert de Canny was a knight of Picardy.
[112]. Præsenti animo, says Heuterus.
[113]. Consult Bayle and Brantôme for a singular anecdote respecting the private reasons which urged the duke to commit this murder.
[114]. The monk of St Denis, author of the History of Charles VI. adds the following damning clause to his account of this foul transaction:—‘But what raised to the highest pitch the horror of the princes at the blackness of soul displayed by the duke was, that very shortly before, he not only was reconciled but entered into an alliance of brotherly love with the duke of Orleans. They had yet more recently confirmed it, both by letters and oaths, insomuch that they called God to witness it, and received the communion together. They had every appearance of an entire union in the conduct of the war which was committed to their charge: they had defended one another’s honour from the bad success which attended them: it seemed as if they had only one interest; and, for a yet greater token of union and of love, the duke of Burgundy, hearing that the duke of Orleans was indisposed, visited him with all the marks, I do not say of civility but, of tender affection, and even accepted an invitation to dine with him the next day, being Sunday. The other princes of the blood, knowing all this, could not but conceive the most extreme indignation at so horrible a procedure: they therefore refused to listen to his excuses,—and the next morning, when he came to the parliament-chamber, they forbade him entrance.’ See Bayle, Art. ‘Petit.’ The reconciliation here mentioned is also alluded to, ch. xliv.