« ZurückWeiter »
picion very natural to be entertained, and yet overcome without any very apparent reason, and to go almost unattended. The nature of Jean-sans-Peur was not very much that of a person who would have a struggle with himself, and, having entertained suspicions, would ever dismiss them from his mind. The fact, however, of his going, and with a small force in comparison of the Dauphin's, is admitted on all hands; and this of itself makes the improbability greater. Indeed it is one of the grounds of the doubt: so that on any supposition it requires to be accounted for, and the difficulty, in some degree, is common to all the accounts, though perhaps greater in that which describes the reluctance and the pressure most strongly. Juv. des Ursins (369) states that the advisers of both parties cautioned them against going to the meeting, and he gives their reasons. He mentions the warning of the Jew, Mousque, to the Burgundian ; and he adds that the latter made a very noble reply, saying he would run all risks of his person for the great object of peace, and would avail himself of the Dauphin's able officers to fight the King of England withal; and so, he adds, “ Hennete of Flanders would fight Henry of Lancaster” (p. 433 infra). He describes the Dauphin as waiting from the 26th of August to the 10th of September for the Duke. He then distinctly states that each party placed his guards at his own wicket, which is no doubt most likely; and in that case, if the shutting immediately after the Burgundian entered was done by the keeper of his wicket, he must have been gained by the Dauphin's party, which is not very easy to understand, as the person posted by the Duke's men was likely to be one of themselves, ordered at the moment and upon the spot. Juv. des Ursins gives both the Burgundian and Armagnac account. The former makes the Dauphin give the signal for attack, against all probability: the latter is extremely difficult to believe, for it makes the Dauphin begin by urging angry complaints of the Burgundian not having performed what he had undertaken against the English ; and adds that, in answer to the proposal that he should go before the King at Troyes, he said he should go how and when he chose himself, and not as the Duke chose. The Armagnac account then states that Novailles, one of the Duke's ten followers, came up to him, and then the Duke became red, and said to the Dauphin, “Quelque voulez vous ?-vous viendrez à présent à votre père?” laying one hand on the Dauphin, and drawing his sword with the other. This seems quite impossible in the relative position of the parties. The account goes on to state that Tanneguy du Chastel immediately carried off the Dauphin, and had no hand in the murder which followed. Juv. des Ursins (373) adds that Batailles, Lore, and Narbonne confessed having attacked the Burgundian ; and that Batailles said to the Burgundian, “ You cut off the hand of my master, and I will cut off yours.” He had been with Orleans at his assassination.
It is very probable that the conspiracy against the Burgundian originated with the followers of Orleans and Tanneguy du Chastel. The account in Monstrelet and in the text does not gainsay that supposition ; but it seems very difficult to acquit the Dauphin of all previous knowledge, and hardly possible that he should not have been drawn in to being a passive spectator, and even conniving at it. The Burgundian being induced to go first from Troyes, and then from Bray, where he had stopped for days, is probably explicable by supposing that Tanneguy du Chastel had made large professions of altered sentiments and of attachment to him, and also that the woman Giac had joined in deceiving and persuading him. She and her husband remained with the Dauphin ever after, which plainly shows that they had been gained over. The giving the castle, a place of strength, to the Duke, while the Dauphin only took up his quarters in the town, was probably one of the measures employed to allay his suspicions. Juv. des Ursins, we must always bear in mind, was an avowed and a very warm adherent of the Armagnac faction. He and his family were great sufferers by the violence of the Burgundians, as he himself relates (340). He was made Archbishop of Rheims by Charles VII. (the Dauphin); and though he affects in one place to be a Burgundian, this is admitted to be a fraud, and it is not calculated to increase his credit. Monstrelet may have
had Burgundian leanings, but so far were these from being strong, that it was long a question whether he had any such partiality at all; and the arguments against Legendre and others, adunced to disprove it by M. Dacier (Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscr. xliii. 535), appear very difficult to resist. He shows that Monstrelet is more severe against Jean-sans-Peur than Juv. des Ursins himself. Pierre de Fennin (473) confirms Monstrelet much more than he does Juv. des Ursins. He was at one time in Charles VI.'s household, when that prince was under Burgundian influence, and so may be supposed to favour the party; but this bias does not appear in his History. T. Elm. (235) and T. Liv. (78) content themselves with shortly stating that the Duke was perfidiously slain by order of the Dauphin ; and T. Walsingham (449), following the same course, declares the assassination to have been done by the Dauphin and his accomplices.
NOTE XLVIII.-p. 211.
It is singular that Dr. Lingard (iii. 375) should represent this proceeding as only indirectly implicating the Dauphin. « The young prince," says he, " is indeed mentioned by the designation of Charles, styling himself Dauphin ;' but not so much as a suspicion is hinted that he was either the author or an abettor of the crime.” Charles is no doubt so named, but that is not all. The preamble of the decree distinctly sets forth that Charles and Duke John had, with their servants, sworn peace on the gospel and cross, and in the hands of the Legate; that John had gone to Montereau, “at the request of the Armagnac,” to keep the said peace; and then it proceeds to state that he had been “ meurtrez et tué au dit lieu de Montereau, mauvaisement, traitreusement, et dampnablement, non obstant les dites promesses et seremens ainsi feas et renouvelle au dit lieu de Montereau par luy et ses complices” (Rym. x. 34). Now though the par luy may mean that the oaths had been renewed at Montereau, this is not quite certain, for there was never said to have been any oaths taken at Montereau on the last occasion. The swearing was at Melun in July, and at Paris. But suppose we so read it; then it follows that the murder is laid as having been committed, notwithstanding the oaths taken by him and his accomplices—that is, by the Dauphin—for there is no other person mentioned to whom luy can apply. No doubt this being the charge, it is made against the whole, as it must have been ; but the words non obstant, luy, and complices will bear no other meaning than direct charge against the Dauphin, as well as his servants, instead of “not so much as a suspicion being hinted against him.” We are also to bear in mind that the requisition (requisitoire) or judicial demand of Philip's advocate, as given by Monstrelet, and which was the foundation of the whole proceeding, directly charges the murder on Charles by name, and adds the names of seven others—Louvet, Boutillier, De Loire, Layet, Tanneguy, Barbasan, and Narbonne (chap. ccxxxii.). The sentence is given, but in general terms, in chap. ccxxxix.
P. Griffet, the learned and diligent editor of P. Daniel, edition 1755, has a note upon the citation of the Dauphin before the Chambre de Marbre, and his condemnation by default to lose the succession to the crown, which P. Daniel, following Monstrelet and Juv. des Urs., had given as certain (vi. 554). President Hénault had denied this proceeding altogether, and regarded it as the same with the proceeding before the two Kings and part of the States at the instance of Philip, in which no forfeiture of the crown is denounced. P. Griffet says that the decree on th latter occasion does not pronounce against the Dauphin by name (nommément), which is true, but only under certain qualifications, as we have seen—for luy applies to him, and therefore he may be said to be named by reference. P. Griffet seems to think there may have been another proceeding, and that the decree is lost. His reason for so supposing is because of no forfeiture of the crown being decreed in the proceeding of which we have the particulars. But it is possible that Monstrelet and Juv. des Urs. may have regarded the general forfeiture as comprehending that of the Crown also ; and certainly the words appear to have been employed for the purpose of including the Dauphin's succession, some of them being peculiarly applicable to his case, as releasing all “ people, vassals, subjects, and supporters from all oaths of fealty, promises and obligations of service," and declaring the forfeiture of all “future succession, direct and collateral, all dignities, honours, and prerogatives whatsoever” (Rym. x. 35).
NOTE XLIX.-p. 217. The distance at which this battle was fought from Rouen, an our having no account of what brought the English army to Beaugé, are circumstances that tend to perplex the historical inquirer. Nor is it easy to explain them by supposing a great reluctance to dwell upon the subject on the part of the English, to whom the particulars must have been known. It certainly appears that Clarence had before the battle pillaged Vendôme and Maine, and had encamped before Angers, when he heard of the Dauphin being between him and Beaugé. T. Walsingham (454) says that Clarence on finding or supposing the enemy unprepared to meet him was overjoyed, "secus quam tantum principem decuit.” He says nothing of the Scots contributing to the defeat. T. Elm. (303) gives the most absurd and incredible account of the battle: first, he speaks of only a few of the principal English officers being engaged — “paucissimum” and “ manipulum ;” and yet he describes the defeat as a great disaster, and with his wonted most execrable taste he puts a dialogue into the mouths of Moral Courage and Compassion as both in Henry's bosom and addressing him. T. Liv. is wholly silent on the subject, and does not even mention Clarence's death. His work was addressed to Henry VI., to whom he frequently speaks personally, calling Catherine“ tua mater," and his birth “ tua nativitas” (93). Indeed he also mentions, though this not in the second person, his having been begotten during his father's journey to England (91). P. de Fennin's account (485) has nothing remarkable, except that he admits the French to