consented to give his daughter to the duke of Orleans, ceased to treat
with the duke of Gueldres, and recalled the ambassadors he had sent to
him. As to the words the lord of Milan has been supposed to address to
his daughter on her taking leave of him, they are also false,—for he
left Pavia without seeing or speaking to her, because he could not have
done either without weeping. The advocate for our adversary utters
another falsehood, when he says, that the lord of Milan expressed his
astonishment to a french knight, on his telling him the king of France
was in good health, replying, ‘Thou sayest, that the king of France is
in good health: how can that possibly be?’ My lord of Milan is too
reserved ever to have held such a conversation; and it is well known to
many now alive, that my lord of Milan loved the king of France above all
other princes, and was very much attached to his family. This he always
testified by the honours and presents he lavished on ambassadors and
nobles of France, who travelled through his country, all from his
respect to the king and his royal blood.
‘With regard to the history of that gallant man, sir Philip de Mezieres,
whom the advocate has most scandalously defamed,—it is true, that when
sir Philip came from Cyprus, king Charles, whom God pardon! retained
him, and made him his chamberlain. After the death of the king, sir
Philip put on the humble dress of a monk, in the church of the
Celestins, where he devoutly remained until his death. The late duke of
Burgundy had a friendship for the lord of Milan, and, perceiving sir
Philip to be a man of ability and prowess, sent him to Milan to propose
a croisade to the holy land: the lord of Milan received him honourably,
and willingly listened to all he had to say.
‘Before that time, sir Philip had never resided in Milan, nor had any
connexion with the lord Bernabo, uncle to the present lord. Sir Philip
had left Milan very long before any mention was made of the marriage of
the duke of Orleans with the present duchess, which clearly proves how
ill founded have been the imputations of our adversary.
‘Another infamous falsehood has been boldly advanced, namely, that my
lord of Orleans, seeing he could not compass the king’s death by
sorceries, practised other means to accomplish it, that he might succeed
to the crown of France, by promising to one man four thousand francs, to
another five thousand, to make up and administer different poisons,—and
that some accepted his offers, and others refused them. Most assuredly,
if there had been such loyal persons as to refuse these great sums of
money, they would not have hesitated to reveal the matter, that it might
be inquired into and punished; but as they have not done so, we may
safely conclude the assertion is false.
‘Our adversary has alledged, that at a dinner at the queen’s palace, the
duke of Orleans threw some powder over the king’s dish. This may be
proved to be false, for no mention was made during the dinner of any
such act,—for it is clear, that if the queen had observed any thing of
the sort at her dinner, she would have denounced it to the servants and
family of the king, otherwise she would not have been loyal.
‘As to the story of the queen’s almoner, which our adversary has brought
forward,—namely, his falling down dead and losing his hair and nails,—it
is notoriously false, for he lived five or six years after the time when
he was supposed thus suddenly to die. I may therefore apply to our
opponent the words of the prophet Jeremiah, in his seventh chapter,
‘Ecce vos confiditis in sermonibus mendacii, sed non proderunt vobis.’
‘Our adversary next advances, that my lord of Orleans, finding he could
not destroy the king by poisons or sorceries, attempted to do it by fire
and other means; that my lord of Orleans, in consequence, proposed a
masquerade dance of persons dressed as savages, in cloth covered with
pitch and tow, and other inflammable materials,—among the number of whom
was the king,—and that the duke of Orleans caused his dress to be made
too tight, that he might be excused from being of the party. Our
adversary adds, that when one of the king’s servants was warning him of
the danger that might ensue from such dresses, the duke of Orleans was
greatly enraged and gave him much abusive language: in short, that my
lord of Orleans set fire to the king’s dress, who was in the utmost
peril of death, had not God, and certain ladies by their exertions,
prevented it.—Now, in answer to this heavy charge, I shall reply, that
my lord of Orleans did not provide the dresses, nor could he then have
known where to have sought for them.
‘The dukes of Berry and Burgundy, lately deceased, well knew who were
the proposers of this dance, and that it was not the duke of Orleans.
Had he been the author of it, he would not have escaped death, or very
great blame, considering the commotion it caused, for he had then
scarcely any power. As to what our adversary says, that the dress of the
duke of Orleans was purposely made too tight, there is not the smallest
appearance of truth in it, for at that time the duke was the thinnest of
the company.
‘It is true, that my lord of Orleans and the lord Philip de Bar had gone
before the commencement of this ball to visit the lady of Clermont, who
had not come to the wedding held at the hôtel de St Pol, for which this
entertainment was given, and on their return they found all the dresses
had been made use of. This was the sole cause why the duke of Orleans
was not dressed to make one of the party.
‘It is an infamous lie to say, as our opponent has done, that the duke
of Orleans wished to burn the king our lord; for the duke and the lord
Philip de Bar intended dressing themselves in these clothes, and,
without thinking or intending any ill, they both told Peter de Navarre
to set fire to the dresses of the savages, that when on fire they might
run among the ladies to frighten them. Peter de Navarre is living, and
he can prove the truth of this to the king. Let us suppose, that in this
youthful frolic, my lord of Orleans should have set fire to one of the
dresses, as he had ordered the same to be done to all, it is not
credible that it could have been done through malice or evil intentions.
It is then apparent, that what our adversary has asserted is a lie; and
I comfort myself with the words of the prophet,—‘Perdes omnes qui
loquuntur mendacium,’—and in the 20th chapter of Proverbs, ‘Qui profert
mendacia peribit.’
‘As to the alliances which our opponent says the duke of Orleans entered
into with Henry of Lancaster, at present calling himself king of
England, to the prejudice of the king and realm, and colouring his
assertion by adding, that Richard, late king of England, had assured the
king of France, that his infirmities were solely owing to the
machinations of the dukes of Milan and Orleans,—I answer, that they are
wicked falsehoods; for when Henry of Lancaster came to France, he was
most honourably received by the princes of the royal family as their
relation, and frequented the company of the duke of Orleans and others
of the blood royal as of their kindred, when, as a friend to the king,
he formed an alliance with the duke of Orleans publicly, and in the
presence of the king and princes of the blood, which at the time was
considered as perfectly lawful, and for the good of the kingdom. This
plainly shows, that my lord of Orleans had made no alliance against king
Richard; but what is more, at the treaty of marriage of the king’s
daughter, now duchess of Orleans, with king Richard, the duke of Orleans
and king Richard formed an alliance similar to that which the latter had
formed with the king of France.
‘After this, my lord of Orleans went to Calais, where he was most
amicably received by king Richard as a very dear brother. In addition,
when king Richard died, the duke of Orleans showed great grief for it,
and made an enemy of king Henry of Lancaster, by the challenges he sent
him, accusing him of being guilty of the crime of high treason against
his sovereign lord king Richard, offering to fight the said king Henry,
in revenge for the death of Richard, either in single combat, or with
any number of persons he might choose.
‘These and many more circumstances can be brought forward to prove that
my lord of Orleans had a strong affection for king Richard, from his
alliance by marriage with the king of France, and that he hated king
Henry for having laid hands on his sovereign.
‘There is not more truth in what our adversary has advanced, that my
lord of Orleans, when with Pietro della Luna, exerted himself to obtain
bulls to the prejudice of the king and his family, and on this account
always favoured the said Pietro; for at that time my lord of Orleans had
procured with this Pietro, then called Benedict, a very advantageous
alliance for the king of France, by which he engaged to support the king
and his family by every means in his power, as may be seen in the bulls
issued to this effect. It is therefore very extraordinary, that any man
endowed with common sense should have asserted publicly things that are
evidently false.
‘As to what our adversary says, that my lord of Orleans supported Pietro
della Luna, I have before answered it; and my lord proposed himself,
that if the two rival popes did not speedily agree to send commissioners
to the council, France should withdraw itself from their obedience.
‘This was more displeasing to Pietro della Luna than any thing that had
been done in this kingdom relative to church-affairs, and is not a sign
that my lord of Orleans was desirous of retarding an union of the church
in favour of Pietro della Luna. It is therefore evident, that the duke
of Orleans is innocent of the charges that have been brought against
him.
‘O, lord king! may it please thee to guard his innocence by means of thy
justice, according as it is written in the 13th chapter of Job,
‘Justitia custodit innocentis viam.’
‘The fourth accusation of our adversary is, That for the space of three
whole years my lord of Orleans, by his artful and deceitful tales, and
advice to the queen, attempted to prevail on her to quit the kingdom,
with her children, and reside in the county of Luxembourg, that he might
enjoy greater power in the government of the realm. So far is this
charge from being true, that my lord of Orleans did every thing in his
power to honour and support the queen during the melancholy illness of
the king, of which it does not become me to say more, for, thanks to
God, she is now present, and knows full well the truth of this, and
which she may more fully declare whenever it may be her good pleasure so
to do. I do not, however, know that she made any complaints on this
subject to our adversary, or to any other persons. I believe the
contrary, to this charge of our opponent, will be found to be the truth;
and that it has been purposely brought forward to defame the reputation
of the deceased.
‘The fifth accusation is, That my lord of Orleans committed the crime of
high treason in the third degree, on the person of my lord the dauphin,
whose soul may God pardon! by compassing his death by means of a
poisoned apple given to a child, from whom one of the nurses of the
children of the duke of Orleans took it by force, and gave it to one of
the children of the duke of Orleans, and caused its death, as well as
that of the dauphin, who also ate of it.
‘This is an absolute falsehood. True it is, that one of the duke of
Orleans’ children died about the time when this fact was supposed to
have taken place, of a bowel complaint, which was then very prevalent,
and carried off many others. Let the physicians, master William le
Boucher and master John de Beaumont, be examined, who visited this
child, and they will declare the truth, that it did not die of poison.
‘Consider, my lords, the improbability of a nurse of the children of the
duke of Orleans daring to give an apple or pear to any of them without
the express orders of the duchess of Orleans; and that when the nurse
went to these gardens with the child she was accompanied by several
women of character, who would not have suffered her to give it an apple,
or any suchlike thing.
‘O most noble and well-beloved duke of Acquitaine! while young, learn to
love justice, and act like Solomon. Consider the evils that may happen
unless justice be observed; and if thou neglectest it, thou wilt not
love thy brothers, for they will be in danger of death if the doctrines
of our adversary be not checked. The prophet says, ‘Justitiæ Domini
rectæ lætificantes corda.’
‘The sixth crime alledged against the duke of Orleans is, That he
committed high treason in the fourth degree, by ruining the king in his
finances, and by oppressing the people with intolerable taxes, and
quartering large bodies of men at arms in various parts of the country.
My lords, it is very astonishing that our adversary should have made
this charge; for it is notorious to every one, that these taxes were not
levied in this kingdom for its own concerns, nor were they for the
profit of the duke of Orleans: they were proposed with great
deliberation of the king, the princes of his blood, and his council, for
the benefit of our adversary himself, in his expedition to Hungary, and
for the payment of the ransom of himself and his army. This was the
cause of such heavy taxes being raised throughout the kingdom, and of
immense sums of money being sent to Turkey, and other distant places, to
the irreparable loss of the country.
‘When our adversary charges the duke of Orleans with having taken four
thousand francs from the tower of the palace, and one hundred thousand
from the castle of Melun,—I reply, that it is false: if any sums of
money were in the tower of the palace, they were distributed according
to orders from the king. In regard to the hundred thousand francs in the
castle of Melun, it is well known that the queen and the duke of Orleans
went thither to amuse themselves,—during which time, our adversary very
improperly came to Paris with a large body of men at arms, and forced
the duke of Acquitaine to return thither, instead of going, as he
intended, to join his mother the queen. He had collected this force of
men at arms with the design of attacking the queen and the duke of
Orleans in Melun, which, of course, made it necessary for her majesty to
raise an army for her own defence, and for the security of the king and
kingdom.
‘She was therefore advised to make use of the money in the castle of
Melun for the pay of the men at arms, but my lord of Orleans never
touched one penny of it; and when it came to the knowledge of the king,
he was well satisfied that it had been so applied.
‘It therefore appears, that this sum of money was expended to oppose the
damnable act of our adversary, and for no other cause. In regard to the
men at arms said to have been kept on foot by my lord of Orleans,
certainly some bodies of them, being quartered over the country,
declared they were sent thither by command of the duke of Orleans, in
order that no one might dare to molest them,—but they had no letters or
commissions from him. On the contrary, he was greatly displeased at the
evil acts they at times committed.
‘When their conduct was laid before the king and council, the duke of
Orleans caused letters to be sent in the king’s name to all bailiffs and
other officers throughout the realm, ordering them to assemble the
nobles and gentlemen of the country to force those who committed such
disgraceful acts to quit the kingdom, having first punished them for
their wicked conduct.
‘O, duke of Burgundy! recollect the irreparable damages that have been
done to many parts of this realm by the bodies of men at arms which thou
hast introduced within it, many of whom were foreigners, who wasted the
countries they passed through, and every one should feel compassion for
events of so pitiable a nature: they can never be enough bewailed.
‘O, thou king of France! most excellent prince, deplore the death of thy
only brother; for thou hast lost the most precious jewel in thy crown,
which thy justice ought to avenge, if no other way be found.
‘O, thou most noble queen! weep for a prince who so greatly honoured
thee, and whom thou hast seen so infamously murdered.
‘O thou, my most redoubted lord, duke of Acquitaine! lament that thou
hast lost the most precious member of thy blood, council and state,
which has caused thee to fall from peace into great tribulation.
‘O, thou duke of Berry! grieve that thou hast seen the brother of the
king thy nephew thus disgracefully end his days, solely because he was
brother to the king, and for no other reason.
‘O, duke of Brittany! thou hast lost the brother to thy duchess, who
greatly loved thee.
‘O, thou duke of Bourbon! weep that thy friend is now buried under
ground; and ye other princes! join in lamentations, for the way is now
opened to put ye all to death most traitorously and unexpectedly.
‘Mourn, men and women, old and young, rich and poor! for the sweetness
of peace and tranquillity is now torn from ye, by this assertion of the
doctrine of assassinating princes, whence wars and destruction must fall
upon you.
‘O, ye churchmen! deplore the loss of a prince who was much attached to
you, and who greatly respected all who performed the divine service,
from his love to God.
‘Ye clerks, and nobles of all degrees! consider how ye will henceforward
act; for our opponent has deceived you by his false arguments, and
caused you to favour his wickedness. But as ye are now aware of the
murder committed on the person of the duke of Orleans, of the falsity
and lies published in our adversary’s defamatory libel, and consequently
of the innocence of my lord of Orleans,—should ye, from this time forth,
in any way support the party of our adversary, know that it will be
treason against the king, and you will then incur the danger of losing
your lives and fortunes, as usual in such cases.
‘Understand then, princes and men of all degrees, that ye are bounden to
assist in maintaining the laws against the duke of Burgundy, who, by
this murderous act, has usurped the power and authority of the king and
his sons, and has deprived them of great aid and consolation; for he has
brought the commonweal into grievous tribulation by shamelessly
violating the wholesome statutes in vindicating his offence against
nobility, kindred, oaths, alliances and assurances,—against God and all
his saints. This mischief cannot be amended except by the laws. To
obtain this reparation, my lady of Orleans and her children are now come
before thee, O lord king! and the princes of thy royal blood,
supplicating you all to weigh well the injury that has been done to
them, and to make them amends in the manner required by her council, or
in any other way, so that it may be publicly known that her lord was
cruelly murdered, and unjustly and falsely accused and defamed. By doing
this, you will perform your duty as you are bounden to do, and acquire
eternal life, as it is written in the 21st chapter of Proverbs, ‘Qui
sequitur justitiam inveniet vitam et gloriam,’—which may God, who reigns
and lives for ever and ever, grant. Amen.’
END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
AT THE HAFOD PRESS,
BY JA. HENDERSON.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
Footnote 1:
These deeds, and the greater part of others quoted in these memoirs,
are preserved in the Chartulary of Cambray. Extracts from them were
communicated by M. Mutte, dean of Cambray, to M. de Foncemagne, who
lent, them to M. Dacier.
Footnote 2:
They are preserved in MS. by the regular canons of St Aubert in
Cambray.
Footnote 3:
‘This extract was published by M. Villaret in the xiith vol. of his
‘Histoire de France,’ edition in 12mo. page 119.’
Footnote 4:
‘The text of Monstrelet is _Pâques Communiaux_. This expression has
seemed to some learned men to be equally applicable to Palm as to
Easter Sunday. M. Secousse, in a note on these words, which he has
added to page 480 of the ixth volume of Ordinances, reports both
opinions, without deciding on either. But the sense is absolutely
determined as to Easter-day in this passage of Monstrelet, and in a
paper quoted by du Chesne, among the proofs to the genealogy of the
house of Montmorenci, p. 224. It is a receipt from Anthony de
Waevrans, esquire, châtelain of Lille, with this date,—‘the 2d of
April, on the vigil of _Pâques communiaux avant la cierge benit_, in
the year 1490.’ The circumstance of the paschal taper clearly shows it
to have been written on holy Saturday, which fell that year on the 2d
of April, since Easter-day of 1491 was on the 3d of the same
month.—See l’Art de Verifier les Dates.’
Footnote 5:
Essais de Montaigne, liv. xi. chap. 10.
Footnote 6:
I have a copy of these corrections, which are introduced either into
the body of the text or at the bottom of the page.
Footnote 7:
‘More slobbering than a mustard pot;’ but Cotgrave translates this,
‘Foaming at the mouth like a boar.’
Footnote 8:
‘Having compared these different chronicles, underneath is the result.
The truces between England and France,
from the Grandes Chroniques.
Measures taken by the king of France
relative to the troubles in the
church, by the election of the duke
of Savoy to the popedom, Ditto.
Continuation of the same subject, Ditto.
Taking of Fougeres, Ditto, and in Jean Chartier.
Rebellion in London, Ditto. Ditto.
Capture of Pont de l’Arche, &c. Ditto. Ditto.
Events of War, Ditto. Ditto.
From page 11. to page 23. in the
original, Ditto.
From page 141. to page 157. Ditto.
With this difference, that the continuator of Monstrelet omits to
report the treaties of surrender of many towns, and that he
sometimes inverts the order of events.
From page 29. to page 35. from the Grandes Chroniques.
158. 164. Ditto.
35. 36. Do. but somewhat abridged.
36. 38. Ditto.
165. 171. Ditto.
38. 40. Ditto.
40. Chronicles of Arras.’
Footnote 9:
From chapter ccxvii to ccxxxvi in the translation, third volume, 4to.
Footnote 10:
‘The capture of Sandwich by the French has been twice told; and also
the account of the embassy from Hungary,—the duke of Burgundy’s entry
into Ghent,—the proceedings against the duke of Alençon,—the account
of what passed at the funeral of king Charles VII.’
Footnote 11:
‘The copy of this chronicle, whence D. Berthod made his extract, is
(or perhaps rather was) in the royal library at Brussels. Pere le Long
and M. de Fontette notice another copy in the abbey of St Waast at
Arras. This must be the original, for D. Berthod told me, that the one
at Brussels was a copy.’
Footnote 12:
‘Vol. xvi. of the Memoires de l’Académie, page 251.’
Footnote 13:
See his preface at the head of the first volume, page 7.
Footnote 14:
Epistola plurium doctorum e societate Sorbonicâ ad illustrissimum
marchionem Scipionem Maffeium, de ratione indicis Sorbonici, seu
bibliothecæ alphabeticæ, quam adornant, &c. 1734.
Footnote 15:
This quaint expression is manifestly adopted from Froissart who uses
it very often.
Footnote 16:
The house of Bavaria was at this period split into so many branches,
the males of every branch retaining, according to the german custom,
the title of the head of the house, that it becomes a difficult task
to point out their several degrees of affinity without having recourse
to a genealogical table. The following will suffice for the purpose of
explaining Monstrelet:
1245.
LEWIS the Severe,
Duke of all Bavaria.
|
1294. | 1294.
+------------+---------------+
| |
1. | 2. |
Beatrix = Lewis, = Margt. Rodolph,
of | emperor, | heiress count
Glogaw | and | of palatine
| duke | Holland of
| of | and the
| Bavaria. | Hainault. Rhine.
| | |
| | |
+----------+ +-------+-------+ +--+--+-----------+
| | | | | |
1347. 1355. 1377. | Rodolph II. Robert I.
Stephen, William Albert, | C. Pal. 1353.
D. of the Mad, count of | 1327.
Bavaria. count of Hainault |
| Holland, &c. & Holland. |
| | |
| | |
1375.| | +-----------------+
+--+------+-----------+ 1404. |
| | | +---+-----+-----------+ Adolphus,
John, Stephen, Frederick, | | | count
D. D. D. John, William VI. Margaret palatine.
of of of bp (m. m. 1319.
Munich. Ingolstadt, Landshut. of Margaret, John |
(father to Liege. daugh. duke |
queen to Philip of Robert II.
Isabella.) duke Burgundy. 1390.
of Burg.) |
| |
1417. | 1398. |
+----------+ +---------+
| |
Jacqueline Robert III.
died emperor,
without 1401.
issue.
Footnote 17:
Q. Luttrel, or Latimer?
Footnote 18:
The whole of this romantic passage seems to refer to the ancient
courts of love, the institution of which was considerably prior to the
fifteenth century.
Footnote 19:
The wars for the succession of Arragon had terminated two years
previous to this, otherwise we should be at no loss to account for the
business which forced Michel d’Orris to return from France.
Footnote 20:
The kings of Castille were at this period styled kings of Spain, κατ’
εξοχην.
Footnote 21:
This was the year of the jubilee. The plague raged at Rome, where, as
Buoninsegni informs us, seven or eight hundred persons died daily. Few
of the pilgrims returned. Many were murdered by the pope’s soldiers,
an universal confusion prevailing at that time throughout Italy.
Footnote 22: