1486, by Antoine Verard, who thus admonishes the gentle reader: "Note
that whenever _Monseigneur_ is referred to, Monseigneur the Dauphin
must be understood, who has since succeeded to the crown and is King
Louis. Then he was in the land of the Duke of Burgundy." Another
editor asserts that _Monseigneur_ is evidently the Duke of Burgundy
and not Louis, and later authorities decide that Anthony de la Sale
wrote the whole collection in imitation of Boccaccio, and that the
names of the narrators were as imaginative or rather as editorial as
the rest of the volume.

If this be true, it maybe inferred that the author would have given an
appearance of verisimilitude to his fiction by mentioning the actual
habitués of the dauphin's court. The name of the Count of Charolais
does not appear at all. The duke tells three or more stories according
to the interpretation given to _Monseigneur_. With three exceptions
the tales are very coarse, nor does their wit atone for their
licentiousness. Possibly Charles held himself aloof from the kind of
talk they suggest. All reports make him rigid in standards of morality
not observed by his fellows. That he had little to do with the court
is certain, whatever his reason.

Louis did not confine himself to the estate assigned him. There were
various court visits to the Flemish towns where he was afforded
excellent opportunities for seeing the wealth of the burghers and
their status in the world of commerce.

Ghent was very anxious to have the duke bring his guest within her
gates and give her an opportunity of displaying her regret for the
past unpleasantness. "In his goodness," Philip at last yielded to
their entreaties to make them a visit himself, but he decided not to