Part 15

{195} Bougeois de Paris, ed. Panthéon, pp. 688, 689.

{196} Bourgeois, pp. 627, 636, and 725.

{204} Chronìque Scandaleuse, ed. Panthéon, p. 237.

{210} Monstrelet: Panthéon Littéraire, p. 26.

{220a} Chron. Scand. ut supra.

{220b} Here and there, principally in the order of events, this article differs from M. Longnon’s own reading of his material. The ground on which he defers the execution of Montigny and De Cayeux beyond the date of their trials seems insufficient. There is a law of parsimony for the construction of historical documents; simplicity is the first duty of narration; and hanged they were.

{224} Chron. Scand., p. 338.

{238} Champollion-Figeac’s Louis et Charles d’Orléans, p. 348.

{240a} D’Héricault’s admirable Memoir, prefixed to his edition of Charles’s works, vol. i. p. xi.

{240b} Vallet de Viriville, Charles VII. et son Epoque, ii. 428, note 2.

{241a} See Lecoy de la Marche, Le Roi René, i. 167.

{241b} Vallet, Charles VII, ii. 85, 86, note 2.

{241c} Champollion-Figeac, 193–198.

{242a} Champollion-Figeac, 209.

{242b} The student will see that there are facts cited, and expressions borrowed, in this paragraph, from a period extending over almost the whole of Charles’s life, instead of being confined entirely to his boyhood. As I do not believe there was any change, so I do not believe there is any anachronism involved.

{243} The Debate between the Heralds of France and England, translated and admirably edited by Mr. Henry Pyne. For the attribution of this tract to Charles, the reader is referred to Mr. Pyne’s conclusive argument.

{244} Des Ursins.

{248} Michelet, iv. App. 179, p. 337.

{249} Champollion-Figeac, pp. 279–82.

{250} Michelet, iv. pp. 123–4.

{253} Debate between the Heralds.

{254} Sir H. Nicholas, Agincourt.

{257a} Debate between the Heralds.

{257b} Works (ed. d’Héricault), i. 43.

{257c} Ibid. 143.

{258a} Works (ed. d’Héricault), i. 190.

{258b} Ibid. 144.

{258c} Ibid. 158.