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.