Vehemently did the duke repudiate the bare possibility of a new breach between him and his liege.  The whole is a paean at a love feast.  If the two together heard their counterfeits express such perfect fidelity, how Louis XI. must have laughed to himself behind his mask of forced courtesy!  Charles, on the other hand, was quite capable of taking it all seriously, wholly unconscious that he had not cut the lion’s claws for once and all.

[Footnote 1:  See Lavisse iv^{ii}.,356.]

[Footnote 2:  The letters of convocation bear the date February 26, 1467, o.s.  Tournay elected four deputies.  By April 30th, they had returned home, and on May 2d they made a report.  The items of expenditure are very exact.  So hard had they ridden that a fine horse costing eleven crowns was used up and was sold for four crowns.  M. Van der Broeck, archivist of Tournay, extracted various items from the register of the Council. See Kervyn’s note.  Chastellain, v., 387.]

[Footnote 3:  See Lavisse iv^[ii]., 356.]

[Footnote 4:  Dordrecht was not among them.  Her deputies held that it was illegal for them to go to The Hague.  Some time later Charles received the oaths at Dordrecht. (Wagenaar, Vaderlandsche Hist., iv., 101.]

[Footnote 5:  Treaty of Ancenis, September 10, 1468. See Lavisse, iv^[ii].] One of the results of the War of Public Weal was that St. Pol was appointed constable of France.]

[Footnote 6:  The original is in the Mss. de Baluze, Paris, Bibl.  Nat.; Lenglet, iii., 19.]

[Footnote 7:  Commines and a letter to the magistrates of Ypres are the basis of this narrative. (Gachard, Doc. ined., i., 196.) There is, however, a mass of additional material both contemporaneous and commentating. See also Michelet, Lavisse, Kirk, etc.  Chastellain’s MS. is lost.]

[Footnote 8:  See Lavisse, iv^[ii]., 397.]

[Footnote 9:  Ludwig v.  Diesbach, (See Kirk, i., 559.) The author was a page in Louis’s train, who afterwards played a part in Swiss affairs.]

[Footnote 10:  It was never captured until Wellington took it in 1814.]

[Footnote 11:  Commines, ii., ch. vii.]

[Footnote 12:  The bishop did indeed meet his death at the hands of the mob, but it was many years later.]

[Footnote 13:  Le roi ... se voyait loge, rasibus d’une grosse tour ou un Comte de Vermandois fit mourir un sien predecesseur Roy de France.  (Commines, ii., ch. vii.)]

[Footnote 14:  Memoires, ii., ch. ix.]

[Footnote 15:  Undoubtedly Commines wishes it to be inferred that this was he.  The main narrative followed here is Commines, whose memoirs remain, as Ste.-Beuve says, the definitive history of the times.  There are the errors inevitable to any contemporary statement.  Meyer, to be sure, says, apropos of an incident incorrectly reported, Falsus in hoc ut in pluribus historicus.  Kervyn de Lettenhove three centuries later is also severe. See, too, “L’autorite historique de Ph. de Commynes,” Mandrot, Rev. Hist., 73.]