1. Anyone working on chronicles is in constant debt to those who have produced critical editions. My comments on each text are largely drawn from the introductions to such editions. Two works of synthesis are also indispensable. C.L. Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century (Oxford, 1913) (henceforward EHL) was a seminal work of its time, providing discussion of individual works as well as much evaluation of the writings of the period. Antonia Gransden’s Historical Writing in England, ii, c. 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century (London and Henley, 1982) (henceforward Gransden) provides a supplement and up-date to the work of Kingsford in the light of later study, and also includes some discussion of French chroniclers whose works impinged on English history. For the French side we have a fairly comprehensive list, although little by way of commentary, in A.M.L.E. Molinier, Les sources de l’histoire de France des origins aux guerres d’Italie, 6 vols (Paris, 1901–6), vol. 4 (1904). Gérard Bacquet, Azincourt (Bellegrade, 1977) offers extracts from several chronicles in French with short commentaries on each author. ↵
2. There is similarly veiled criticism of the Burgundians in the writings of Alain Chartier. See Texts E 4 and E 5. ↵
4. Gransden, p. 467. For a new view on the relationship of the Titus Livius’ Vita to the Pseudo-Elmham see D. Rundle, ‘The Unoriginality of Tito Livio Frulovisi Vita Henrici Quinti’, English Historical Review, 123 (2008). ↵
5. John Benet’s Chronicle for the years 1400 to 1462, ed. G.L. Harriss and M.A. Harriss, Camden Miscellany, vol. 24 (Camden Society, fourth series, 9, London, 1972), p. 177. The account of the battle here is too perfunctory to merit inclusion. ↵
6. The Religieux also speaks of French traitors who advised Henry to march into France. ↵
7. J. Bradbury, The Medieval Archer (Woodbridge, 1985), p. 125. ↵
8. M. Keen, ‘Chivalry, heralds and history’, in The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to R.W. Southern, ed. R.J.C. Davis and J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford, 1981), pp. 393–414. ↵
9. Basset (Text A 8) mentions that Henry dubbed several knights at Pont-Saint-Maxence where he anticipated battle, but no account tells us of English knights before the battle of Agincourt. Monstrelet, although interestingly not Le Fèvre and Waurin, says that the duke of Orléans and others were dubbed knights on the evening of 24 October. ↵
10. La Chronique de Philippe de Vigneulles, ed. C. Bruneau, 2 vols (Metz, 1927–9), 1, pp. xvi–xvii. ↵
11. Text D1a. ↵
12. I am grateful to Dr Gill Knight for these observations. ↵
13. This is even more overt in an anonymous text of the mid-fifteenth century, ‘Contentio Alexandri hanibalis Scipionis et Regis Henrici Quinti’, where Henry V claims superiority over the other three, Alexander, Hannibal and Scipio. W.O’Sullivan, ‘John Manyngham: an early Oxford humanist’, Bodleian Library Record, 7 (1962–7), pp. 28–39. ↵
14. Adam of Usk’s account of the battle, written before 1430, is not substantial enough to merit inclusion here, but it is interesting to see how his Welshness influences him on two occasions. He is the first to tell us that Davy Gam was ‘of Brecon’, and he later notes that Welsh benefices were exempted from convocation’s grant of taxation to Henry after the battle because they had been impoverished by the Anglo-Welsh wars (The Chronicle of Adam Usk, 1377–1421, ed. C. Given-Wilson (Oxford, 1997), pp. 255–9). Usk also provides an interesting narrative of the entry to London. ↵
15. Gransden, p. 456. ↵
16. Gesta Henrici Quinti, ed. F. Taylor and J.S. Roskell (Oxford, 1975), p. xxiii. Taylor and Roskell printed an English translation in this parallel text edition. The 2000 and 2009 editions of A. Curry, The Battle of Agincourt. Sources and Interpretations printed the translation provided by Taylor and Roskell but for the e-book, for copyright reasons, a new translation has been made.↵
17. Incerti Scriptoris Chronicon Angliae de Regni Regum Lancastriensum Henrici IV, Henrici V et Henrici VI, ed. J.A. Giles (London, 1848). ↵
18. Goodwin used it, but only marginally, in his The History of the Reign of Henry the Fifth, King of England (London, 1704). It is noted there as Anon. Scrip. Hist in Bibliotheca D. Bernard. ↵
19. Henrici Quinti Angliae Regis Gesta (London, 1850). ↵
20. Gesta, p. 13. Taylor and Roskell provide a full discussion of authorship, pp. xviii–xxiii. See also A.K. McHardy, ‘Religion, Court Culture and Propaganda: The Chapel Royal in the Reign of Henry V’, in Henry V: New Interpretations, ed. G. Dodd (York, 2013), pp. 138–42. ↵
21. Ibid., pp. xxxiv–xxxvii. ↵
22. For his career and other writings, see Gransden, pp. 206–10; EHL, pp. 46–7, 49–50. The work is discussed in the introduction to the Gesta, pp. xx–xxi. There is an introduction provided in Cole’s edition of the Liber Metricus, pp. xli–lvii, but it must be used with caution as it assumes that Elmham was also the author of the Vita et Gesta Henrici Quinti, now commonly called the Pseudo-Elmham. I am grateful to Dr Gill Knight for discussion of the text. ↵
23. These include the use of chronograms where letters in words should be read as numbers. This is also seen in verses on the siege of Harfleur and battle in other monastic chronicles, including the Chronicle of Mont-Saint-Michel (see Text D 5b.). See also A. Gransden, ‘Silent meanings in Ranulph Higden’s Polychronicon and in Thomas Elmham’s Liber Metricus de Henrico Quinto’, Medium Aevum, 46 (1977), pp. 231–40. I am so grateful to my colleague, Dr Gill Knight, for discussion of the text. ↵
24. Gransden, ‘Silent meanings’, p. 236, with reference to the preface of the work (Liber Metricus, p. 80). ↵
25. One early fifteenth-century copy of the Liber is in Cotton Julius E IV (where is found also the J text of the Gesta). As the editors of the Gesta note (p. xvi, n. 3) this manuscript was previously part of British Library, Cotton Tiberius B XII, a collection of materials made by Thomas Beckington, bishop of Bath and Wells (1443–65) with respect to the English claim to France. ↵
26. Gesta, p. xlix. Thomas Otterbourne, Chronica Regum Angliae (c. 1422–3), is printed in Duo rerum Anglicarum Scriptores Veteres, ed. T. Hearne, 2 vols (Oxford, 1732). It provides a very perfunctory account of the campaign with only two points of note: that Harfleur was deliberately depopulated by Henry at its conquest and that the march to Calais was undertaken on foot (1, p. 276). Like Streeche and Elmham, however, it does include the story of the dauphin’s gift of tennis balls. John Streeche was a canon of the Augustinian priory of St Mary’s, Kenilworth, close to Kenilworth castle which was visited by Henry in 1414 and where Otterbourne places the receipt of the dauphin’s gift. His account of the battle, also composed in the early years of the reign of Henry VI, is likewise short and inconsequential, save perhaps for the idea that Henry took his captives to Calais ‘chained and bound’ (J. Taylor, ‘The Chronicle of John Streeche for the reign of Henry V (1414–1422)’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 16 (1932), pp. 151–4). ↵
27. Liber Metricus, p. 81. ↵
28. Ed. H.T. Riley, 2 vols (Rolls Series, London, 1863–4), pp. 309–14. See also The St Albans Chronicle. The Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham, II. 1394–1422, ed. J. Taylor, W.R. Childs and L. Watkiss (Oxford, 2011). ↵
29. Ed. H.T. Riley (Rolls Series, London, 1876), pp. 461–8. Galbraith notes differences between the Historia Anglicana, the Ypodigma Neustriae and the St Albans Chronicle in his edition of the latter, and provides the references for all the classical quotations. ↵
30. Galbraith, St Albans Chronicle, p. vi, comments that the passages on Agincourt ‘show a verbal memory of a variety of classical authors which is surely astonishing’. Lucan (AD 39–65) wrote an epic poem, the Pharsalia, on the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. Persius (AD 34–62) wrote satirical poems largely against Nero. The Thebais of Statius (c. AD 45–96), tells the story of the quarrel between the sons of Oedipus. The Aeneid of Virgil (70–19 BC) concerned the wanderings of the Trojan, Aeneas, and the ultimate founding of Rome. The Ilias Latinas was a Latin version of Homer’s Iliad by an unknown poet, probably of the first century AD, and was a popular school text in the classical period. ↵
31. As cited in Gransden, p. 210. On his links with the duke, see R. Weiss, ‘Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester and Tito Livio Frulovisi’, in Fritz Saxl 1980–1948: A Volume of Memorial Essays from his Friends in England, ed. D.J. Gordon (London, 1957), pp. 218–27. For general background see R. Weiss, Humanism in England during the Fifteenth Century, 3rd edition (Oxford, 1967), and D. Rundle, ‘On the difference between Virtue and Weiss: humanist texts in England during the fifteenth century’, in Courts, Counties and the Capital in the Later Middle Ages, ed. D.E.S. Dunn (Stroud, 1996), pp. 181–203. ↵
32. Tito Livio seems to have sent a copy of the Vita to John Stafford, archbishop of Canterbury when the latter was also sought as a patron. (Rundle, ‘On the difference between Virtue and Weiss’, p. 191, n. 38.) A copy given to a fellow humanist, Decembri, was translated by him into Italian, see J.H. Wylie, ‘Decembri’s version of the Vita Henrici Quinti by Tito Livio’, EHR, 24 (1909), pp. 84–9. ↵
33. C.W.T. Blackwell, ‘Humanism and politics in English royal biography: the use of Cicero, Plutarch and Sallust in the Vita Henrici Quinti (1438) by Titus Livius de Frulovisi and the Vita Henrici Septimi (1500–1503)’, in I.D. McFarlane, ed., Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Sanctandriani: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies (Binghampton, 1986), pp. 431–40, at p. 433. Blackwell doubts, however, that the work was influenced by a reading of Plutarch’s Lives. ↵
34. EHL, pp. 53–4. ↵
35. The references to Tito Livio in the first single volume study of the reign, T. Goodwin, The History of the Reign of Henry the Fifth, King of England (London, 1704), are to folio numbers which may imply, however, than an original manuscript was consulted at least in this case. For a new view on the relationship of the Vita to the Pseudo-Elmham see D. Rundle, ‘The Unoriginality of Tito Livio Frulovisi Vita Henrici Quinti’, English Historical Review, 123 (2008). ↵
36. The First English Life of King Henry the Fifth, ed. C.L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1922), p. xv. ↵
37. Gesta, p. xvii. ↵
38. This is probably drawn from Horace. Other works are also drawn upon, including the Psalms, and a full study of the allusions in this work, and in Tito Livio and Walsingham, would no doubt be fruitful in showing how these battle narratives were created. ↵
39. John Capgrave’s Abbreviacion of Chronicles, ed. P. Lucas (Early English Text Society, original series, 285, 1983), pp. 245–6. ‘On 24 October [sic] the hosts met less than a mile part. The king gave comfort to his men that they should trust in God, for their cause was rightful. The French stood on the hill, and we in the vale. Between them was land newly ploughed, making for difficult footing. Suffice to say that the field fell to the king, and the French lost it, despite their great numbers and their pride. There were killed the duke of Alençon, the duke of Brabant, the duke of Bar, five counts, the constable of France and a hundred lords, 4,069 knights and squires, with the common people not being counted. The following were taken prisoner: the duke of Orléans, the duke of Bourbon, the counts of Eu and Vendôme, the duke of Brittany’s brother who claimed to be earl of Richmond, and a knight called Boucicaut, marshal of France, and others wearing coats of arms to the number of 700. On our side were killed Edward duke of York, the earl of Suffolk, 4 knights, a squire Davy Gam, and of the common people 28. During the battle, brigands on the French side took the king’s carriage and led it away. Inside it they found the king’s crown. They had bells rung and then sang ‘Te Deum laudamus’, saying that the king was dead. But only a few hours later, their joy was changed’. ↵
40. Sir Robert was uncle to Gilbert Umfraville, one of the king’s most trusted captains. At the end of the first version of his chronicle, Hardyng extols the virtues of Sir Robert: ‘truly he was a jewel for a King, in wise counsel and knightly deeds of war’ (C.L. Kingsford, ‘The first version of Hardyng’s Chronicle, EHR, 27 (1912), pp. 746–8). A John Hardyng served in the garrison of Argentan in the 1430s (Bibliothèque Nationale de France, manuscrit français 25771/770, 812, 888, 900; 25773/1185; 25774/1285). ↵
41. Kingsford, ‘First versions’, pp. 462–82, 740–53. ↵
42. As noted in Gransden, p. 282. ↵
43. Several further manuscripts of the second version are known. See A.S.G. Edwards, ‘The manuscripts and texts of the second version of John Hardyng’s Chronicle’, in England in the Fifteenth Century: Proceedings of the 1986 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. D. Williams (Woodbridge, 1987), pp. 75–84. ↵
44. Printed in Kingsford, ‘First verions’, pp. 744–6. There is no specific mention of Agincourt here but the king is praised for his conquests and said to have crusading ambitions (‘to conquer the land of all Syria’). ↵
45. For further discussion, see Gransden, pp. 329–30, B.J.H. Rowe, ‘A contemporary account of the Hundred Years War from 1415 to 1429’, EHR, 41 (1926), pp. 504–13, and J.G. Nichols, ‘Peter Basset: a lost historian of the reign of Henry V’, Notes and Queries, second series, 9 (1860), p. 424. ↵
46. Annals were attributed to William Worcester himself by Thomas Hearne and are published as such in J. Stevenson, Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wards of the English in France, 2 vols in 3 parts (Rolls Series, London 1861–4), II, ii, pp. 743–93. It is unlikely, however, that these are the work of Worcester although their true nature is not clear. The entry for 1415 (p. 759) s given here to show that, in the annalistic tradition, Agincourt was seen as ‘the event of the year but that this did not always generate expansive treatment. The reference to Cecily Neville may be another example of the impact on historical writing of the Yorkist ascendancy later in the century. ‘1415 In this year on the morrow of St Laurence, King Henry V entered the sea with 1726 ships at Southampton and on the vigil of the Assumption landed at Chef de Caux, and on 22 September the town of Harfleur surrendered to him, and on 25 October next was the battle of Agincourt, on which day the French were defeated and many lords captured and killed. In this year was born Cecily, wife of Richard, duke of York, daughter of the early of Westmoreland, on 3 May’. ↵
47. PRO, E101/46/24. ↵
49. See the discussion in Manual of Writings in Middle English 1050–1500, 8 (Newhaven, Connecticut, 1989), pp. 2629–37. ↵
50. EHL, p. 133. ↵
51. The intended third volume which would have included a full textual discussion never appeared but Brie had earlier written Geschichte und Quellen der mittelenglischen Prosachronik, ‘the Brute of England’, oder The Chronicles of England (Marburg, 1905), where he listed and attempted to classify 120 manuscropts of the Brut (see review by J.Tait in EHR, 21 (1906), p. 616). ↵
52. Manual of Writings in Middle English, 8, pp. 2634–5, 2818–21. The new categories are 1. The common version to 1333 with continuations, some of which go to 1461, 2. Extended versions, 3, the abbreviated versions drawing on the common and extended versions, 4. peculiar texts and verions. Se alos L.M. Matheson, The Prose Brut: The Development of a Middle English Chronicle (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, Arizona, 1998). ↵
53. See also EHL, pp. 129–33. Tito Livio is thought to have used the longer version of the Latin Brut. Kingsford suggests that it was the source for the version of the English Brut printed in An English chronicle from 1377 to 1461, ed. J.S. Davies (Camden Society, 64, London, 1856). ↵
54. Examples are given in Manual of Writings in Middle English, 8, pp. 2632–3. The ‘Chronicle of King Henryie ye Fifte’, in British Library, Cotton Claudius A VIII is essentially the section on the reign from the common version of the Brut but has a claim to being the only fifteenth-century English life of the king. ↵
55. Gransden, p. 221. ↵
56. EHL, p. 136. ↵
57. EHL, pp. 275–6, 31–2. ↵
58. Ibid., pp. 285, 35–6. ↵
59. EHL, p. 132. ↵
60. EHL, pp. 123–5. See Text D 2a for the account of the king’s entry to London as given in this version of the Brut. ↵
61. EHL, pp. 125–6. ↵
62. For a general discussion, see Chronicles of London, ed. C.L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1905), Six Town Chronicles of England, ed. R. Flenley (Oxford, 1911), and Manual of Writings in Middle English, 8, pp. 2647–50. ↵
63. Kingsford, Chronicles of London, p. xxv. ↵
64. Ibid., p. xix. In Chronicles of London, Kingsford printed several versions, including an example of the abbreviated form from British Library, Cotton Julius BII. ↵
65. Gransden, pp. 228–30 gives a detailed analysis of the links between the versions. For further recent work see two articles by M.R. McLaren, ‘The aims and interests of the London chroniclers of the fifteenth century’, in Trade, Devotion and Governance. Papers in Later Medieval History, ed. D.J. Clayton, R.G. Davies and P. McNiven (Stroud, 1994), pp. 158–76, and ‘The textual transmission and authorship of the London chronicles’, English Manuscript Studies, 1100–1700, 3 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 38–72. ↵
66. An interesting example is to be found in The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century, ed. J. Gairdner (Camden Society, new series, 17, London, 1876), where a version of the London Chronicle possibly associated with William Gregory of the Skinners Company, mayor in 1451, is found alongside John Page’s poem on the siege of Rouen and John Lydgate’s verses on the kings of England. ↵
67. Chronicle of the Greyfriars of London, ed. J.G. Nichols (Camden Society, first series, 53, 1852). This chronicle, found in the register book of the London Franciscans, covers the years from 1189 to 1556, and was consulted by John Stow. It reveals how shaky the historical memory could sometimes be, with several errors concerning names of those English peers who died on the campaign. Its London interest is revealed by the fact that it is the only one to mention the death of a Londoner, Sir John Philpot, at the siege. ↵
68. John Stow probably owned what is now ‘A short English chronicle’, in Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, ed. J. Gairdner (Camden Society, second series, 28, London, 1880), p. 55. This version of the London Chronicle was written early in the reign of Edward IV, terminating with the coronation of Elizabeth Woodville in 1465. It is really three chronicles, an abridgement of the Brut from the foundation of Albion to the beginning of the reign of Henry IV; a rather generic account in London Chronicle form of the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V; and a more independent version of subsequent reigns. The manuscript also contains Lydgate’s verses on the Kings of England and historical memoranda compiled by Stow. The text is not significant enough to be included here. ↵
69. The Maire of Bristowe is Kalendar, ed. L.T. Smith (Camden Society, new series, 5, London, 1872). ↵
70. Reprinted as Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys (Paris, 1994). ↵
71. N. Grevy-Pons and E. Ornato, ‘Qui est l’auteur de la chronique latine de Charles VI, dite du Religieux de Saint-Denis?’, Bibliothéque de l’école des chartes, 134 (1976), pp. 85–103. See also H. Moranvillé, ‘La Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Ddenis’, Bibliothéque de l’école des chartes, 51 (1890), pp. 5–40, C. Samaran, ‘Les manuscrits de la chronique latine de Charles VI dite du Religieux de Saint Denis’, Le Moyen Age, 18 (1963), pp. 657–71, and P.S. Lewis, ‘Some provisional remarks upon the chronicles of Saint-Denis and upon the [Grandes] Chroniques de France in the fifteenth century’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 39 (1995), pp. 146–81, which cites recent work by Bernard Guenée in note 16. ↵
72. G. Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. A Survey (Brooklyn, Mass. and Leyden, 1978). ↵
73. Bacquet, Azincourt, p. 15, considers him to be an Orleanist supporter, however. ↵
75. ‘Deeds of the noble French descended from the royal line of the noble Priam of Troy, down to the noble Charles, son of Charles VI, who was loved by nobles and all others’. ↵
76. The full text is printed in ‘Chronique de Ruisseauville’, Archives historiques et littéraires du nord de la France et du midi de la Belgique, series 1, 4 (Valenciennes, 1834), pp. 136–44. ↵
77. Chronique du Bec et Chronique de François Carré, ed. Abbé Porée (Société de l’Histoire de France, Paris, 1883), pp. 81–2. ‘Around the same time the monastery of Bec was much damaged as was the whole region by the French army which had gathered there against the king of England. They stayed there continually devastating and destroying the whole region from the month of August right through to the battle. So it was necessary to have munitions in the fortress of the monastery at the expense of the church, against the English invasion’. The editor notes an order issued by the dauphin from Vernon-sur-Seine on 22 September 1415 (citing folio 89v of the Mémoires of Dom Jouvlin, Bibliothéque Nationale, MS Latin, 13,905), that none of his officers should molest the monks or take foodstuffs from their estates. This would indeed seem to be at the very point when the army was being assembled. ↵
78. For a full biography and commentary on his works, see Écrits politiques de Jean Juvénal des Ursins, vol. 3, ed. P. Lewis (Société de l’histoire de France, Paris, 1992). ↵
79. See p. 334. ↵
80. Bacquet, Azincourt, pp. 15–16 claims that it was written 15 years after the battle. ↵
82. Lewis, ‘Some provisional remarks on the chronicles of Saint-Denis’, pp. 159–62. ↵
83. See G. Small, George Chastelain and the Shaping of Valois Burgundy: Political and Historical Culture at Court in the Fifteenth Century (Woodbridge, 1997). ↵
84. Waurin mentions Monstrelet only once in his work, however, and it is not clear whether the latter was known personally to either Waurin or Le Févre. We are on surer ground that that last two met on several occasions. Recueil des croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretagne à present nommé Engleterre par Jehan de Waurin, ed. W.L. Hardy and E.L.C.P. Hardy, 5 vols (Rolls Series, London, 1864–91), vol.1, pp. xiii–xiv. ↵
85. Such a study would also need to bring in other works such as the Chronique anonyme (Text B 4), the Chronique des ducs de Brabant par Edouard Dynter (Text B 10), and the ‘manuscrit de Tramecourt’ which is essentially a reduced version of Monstrelet. (This in itself is significant in terms of the circulation of the latter’s chronicle.) The manuscript de Tramecourt is too derivative to merit inclusion here, and was not compiled until the late 1450s, but is interesting for a note of authorship near the end of the account of Agincourt. ‘Amongst the dead was someone called Hector de Magnicourt, lord of Werchin-en-Ternois, father of John, lord of Werchin, and he had been newly dubbed a knight at the battle, and 500 others. This Jean de Werchin, his son, later began to build in a new place the family seat of the Werchin in the year 1452 when he was 37, and it was completed, in its present state, in 1457. He wrote these present histories with his own hand and married Jeanne de Soutrecourt, by whom he had several children’. The section on the battle is printed in A. de Loisne, ‘Le Bataille d’Azincourt d’après le manuscrit inédit du château de Tramecourt’, Bulletin historique et philologique de comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques (1887), pp. 72–82. ↵
86. La Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet, ed. L. Douet-D’Arcq, 6 vols (Société l’Histoire de France, 1857–62), vol. 1, pp. 2–3. ↵
87. D. Boucquey, ‘Enguerran de Monstrelet, historien trop longtemps oublié’, in Les sources littéraires et leurs publics dans l’espace bourguignon XIVe-XVIe siècles, ed. J. Cauchies (Publication du Centre Européen d’études Bourguignonnes, 31, 1991), pp. 113–25. ↵
88. Monstrelet, 4, p. 128. That could have included Le Fèvre, of course, who was king of arms of the order of the Golden Fleece founded by Philip the Good. ↵
89. The First English Life of Henry the Fifth, ed. C.L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1922), p. xv. ↵
90. Chronique de Jean Le Fèvre, Seigneur de Saint Remy, ed. F. Morand, 2 vols (Société de l’Histoire de France, 1876–81), vol. 1 (1876), pp. 267–8. ↵
91. Small, George Chastelain, p. 140. ↵
92. Le Fèvre, 2, appendix I and II. ↵
93. Biographie nationale de Belgique, 27 (1938), col. 129–32. See also Gransden, pp. 288–93. ↵
94. Receuil, vol. 1, p. 3. ↵
95. Ibid., pp. li–cxx. ↵
96. There is also a translation by T. Johnes (The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet, 2 vols, London, 1840) but I have not found this to be totally reliable and have therefore provided a new translation based on the text in the Douet-D’Arcq edition. ↵
97. My translation is based upon that provided by the same editors in A Collection of the Chronicles and Ancient Histories of Great Britain now called England, 3 vols (Rolls Series, 1864–91), vol. 2 (1399–1422), pp. 187–226. The chronicles for that period from 1325 to 1471 are also printed in French in Anchiennes Croniques d’Engleterre par Jean de Waurin, ed. L.E.E. Dupont, 3 vols (Société France, 1858). ↵
98. Small, Georges Chastelain, p. 103 ↵
99. In Wauquelin’s French translation this was rendered as ‘fist ses archiers mettre devant très ordonnément sur les ells (wings) et ses homes d’armes bien rangier et ordonner’. ↵
100. There is also an English translation of the work in Janet Shirley, A Parisian Journal 1405–1449 (Oxford, 1968), pp. 94–7. I have based my translation on that of Shirley but have made changes to bring it closer to the original French. ↵
101. Ed. Guillaume Le Tailleur, 1487, reprinted by A Hellot as Les chroniques de Normandie 1223–1453 (Rouen, 1881). ↵
102. Narratives of the Expulsion of the English from Normandy, ed. J. Stevenson (Rolls Series, London, 1863). ↵
103. See E. Cosneau, Le Connétable de Richemont (Paris, 1886) for this and for a full discussion of his career. ↵
104. For a full study of the works of Chastelain, see G. Small, George Chastelain. ↵
105. College of Arms, Arundel MS xlviii. ↵
106. Le Fèvre-Pontalis provides a useful introduction in volume 4. ↵