The chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet, Vol. 02 [of 13] — Key Ideas to Explore

The University of Paris as a Political Actor

The excerpts show the University of Paris repeatedly intervening in the conflict between the king and the Orleans party. When the king prepares to march against the princes, the rector of the university, “magnificently accompanied by all the members and supporters of it,” remonstrates about food shortages and lawlessness. The chancellor deflects with a promise of a council after dinner. Later, the university sends an embassy headed by the abbot of Povegny, who “harangued them very ably and gravely.” Monstrelet records these interventions as part of the political fabric, not as background noise. The university is not merely a scholarly body but a corporate entity that negotiates, petitions, and claims a voice in governance. Its representatives appear alongside princes and prelates, and their speeches are summarized with the same care given to those of dukes and kings.

The Mechanics of Diplomacy and Delayed Responses

Monstrelet’s narrative lingers on the procedural steps of diplomacy: letters are sent, ambassadors are received, replies are drafted, and often nothing is resolved. The princes refuse to back down; the king sends the queen, the cardinal de Bar, and the count de St Pol to negotiate. The queen “remained there some time negotiating,” but the princes “were firm in their resolution.” The chronicle notes the precise dates—the 23rd September—and the sequence of events: the king orders his army readied, then is intercepted by the university, then holds a council in the chambre verde. This attention to process, rather than to dramatic climax, gives the chronicle a documentary texture. The reader sees how decisions are deferred, how embassies fail, and how the machinery of state grinds slowly even in crisis.

The Chronicler’s Voice: Restraint and Specificity

Monstrelet rarely editorializes. He reports that the king was “very indignant, and much troubled thereat,” but does not condemn the princes or praise the queen. His judgments are implicit in the selection of detail: the princes complain that the king is “counselled by such fellows as the provost of Paris,” and they offer to explain their grievances “article by article.” The chronicler records the complaint without endorsing it. This restraint extends to the handling of violence; the murder of the duke of Orleans is the catalyst for the volume, but Monstrelet does not describe it in the excerpts. Instead, he focuses on the legal aftermath and the political realignments. The effect is a chronicle that feels both meticulous and dispassionate, a record of events as they were publicly transacted rather than as they were privately felt.

Readers approaching this volume should expect a narrative built from formal documents, speeches, and the movements of embassies rather than from set-piece battles or character studies. Monstrelet’s chronicle rewards attention to the precise wording of demands and the composition of councils. The catalog subjects—Hundred Years’ War, medieval Europe, Valois France—are accurate but broad; the chronicle’s real interest lies in the friction between legal forms and armed force, and in the role of institutions like the university in shaping political outcomes.

Some evenings, while tracing Monstrelet’s careful accounts of Orleans and Burgundy locked in formal, deadly ritual, I recall another chronicle—one of Moors and Spaniards forging their own uneasy peace across centuries. Both books share a quiet patience, watching honor and law bend under siege. Here is their kinship: History of the Moors of Spain — Story, Setting & Ideas, a gentler, yet similarly woven, tapestry.