‘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.