‘I have hitherto only spoken of the two first volumes of the chronicles of Monstrelet; the third, which commences in April 1444, I think should be treated of separately, because I scarcely see any thing in it that may be attributed to him. In the first place, the thirteen last years, from his death in 1453 to that of the duke of Burgundy in 1467, which form the contents of the greater part of this volume, cannot have been written by him. Secondly, the nine preceding years, of which Monstrelet, who was then living, may have been the author, seem to me to be written by another hand. We do not find in this part either his style or manner of writing: instead of that prolixity which has been so justly found fault with, the whole is treated with the dryness of the poorest chronicle: it is an abridged journal of what passed worthy of remembrance in Europe, but more particularly in France, from 1444 to 1453,—in which the events are arranged methodically, according to the days on which they happened, without other connexion than that of the dates. ‘Each of the two first volumes is preceded by a prologue, which serves as an introduction to the history of the events that follow: the third has neither prologue nor preface. In short, with the exception of the sentence passed on the duke of Alençon, there are not, in this volume, any justificatory pieces, negotiations, letters, treaties, ordinances, which constitute the principal merit of the two preceding ones. It would, however, have been very easy for the compiler to have imitated Monstrelet in this point, for the greater part of these pieces are reported by the chronicler of St Denis, whom he often quotes in his first fifty pages. I am confirmed in this idea by having examined into the truth of different events, when I found that the compiler had scarcely done more than copy, word for word,—sometimes from the Grandes Chroniques of France,—at others, though rarely, from the history of Charles VII. by Jean Chartier, and, still more rarely, from the chronicler of Arras, of whom he borrows some facts relative to the history of Flanders.[8] ‘To explain this resemblance, it cannot be said that the editors of the Grandes Chroniques have copied Monstrelet, for the Grandes Chroniques are often quoted in this third volume, which consequently must have been written posterior to them. There would be as little foundation to suppose that Monstrelet had copied them himself, and inserted only such facts as more particularly belonged to the history of the dukes of Burgundy. The difference of the plan and execution of the two first volumes and of this evidently points out another author. But should any doubt remain, it will soon be removed by the evidence of a contemporary writer, who precisely fixes on the year 1444 as the conclusion of the labours of Monstrelet.