Such is the authority for the name and authorship of the work; and though slight, it has been deemed sufficient by most bibliographers, notwithstanding the controversies raised by some eminent writers on the subject. The Chronicle was first appended to the Memoirs of Commines, in Jean Godefroy’s edition, published at Brussels in 1713. It will also be found in Lenglet du Fresnoy’s edition, published in 1747. The present translation is from the text in Petitot’s great collection of memoirs relating to the history of France. But although it has been agreed to attribute this Chronicle to Jean de Troyes, no researches have succeeded in discovering any particulars in relation to the author himself. It has not even been positively established whether he can be identified with the clerk in the Hotel de Ville of Paris, mentioned on the title-page of some of the earlier editions. In fact, all is speculation regarding him: but it is conjectured reasonably enough by Grosley that he was a son of a certain Jean de Troyes mentioned by Juvenal des Ursins as having distinguished himself in the disturbances at Paris during the reign of Charles VI., and who was appointed Grand Master of the Artillery by Charles VII., in reward for his services. It is hard to understand why this should have been called the Scandalous Chronicle; unless, as Sorel suggests, the name was given to it by some bookseller in order to pique the curiosity of the public. Far from seeking to defame Louis XI., the author omits all mention of a vast number of the actions most discreditable to his memory; and in regard to his gallantries, he is almost as silent as Commines. The chief characteristic of the work is its straightforward simplicity: it is full of curious remarks on passing events, such as might be made by a superficial observer, who took no pains to penetrate into the causes and consequences of the occurrences he describes. It is this quality which renders the perusal of the memoirs of Jean de Troyes most interesting, after reading those of Commines. The latter unmasks the policy of his sovereign, reveals all his intrigues, and indicates the secret springs of his conduct; the former attempts nothing of the kind, but merely portrays events in the light in which Louis XI. desired that they should be seen by his subjects. Take, for instance, the narrative of the king’s visit to Peronne, in 1468. No one would suppose, from the account given by Jean de Troyes, that Louis, a dupe to his own artifices, had imprudently placed himself in the power of the Duke of Burgundy, and been detained a prisoner by him; the treaties concluded in the town appear to have been signed freely by the French monarch, who thereupon voluntarily consented to join Duke Charles in his expedition against the Liegeois. After reading the true history of the whole affair in Commines, it is curious to notice the colour which the king gave to it in the eyes of