subject of the Duke (Antoine de la Salle, of whom I shall have occasion
to speak shortly) it was more probable that "Monseigneur" would mean the
Duke than the Dauphin, and he therefore ascribed the stories to Philippe
le Bel. Modern French scholars, however, appear to be of opinion that
"Monseigneur" was the Comte de Charolais, who afterwards became famous
as Charles le Téméraire, the last Duke of Burgundy.

The two great enemies were at that time close friends, and Charles was a
very frequent visitor to Genappe. It was not very likely, they say, that
Duke Philippe who was an old man would have bothered himself to tell
his guest indecent stories. On the other hand, Charles, being then only
Comte de Charolais, had no right to the title of "Monseigneur," but they
parry that difficulty by supposing that as he became Duke before
the tales were printed, the title was given him in the first printed
edition.

The matter is one which will, perhaps, never be satisfactorily settled.
My own opinion--though I claim for it no weight or value--is that Louis
appears to have the greatest right to the stories, though in support of
that theory I can only adduce some arguments, which if separately weak
may have some weight when taken collectively. Vérard, who published
the first edition, says in the Dedication; "Et notez que par toutes les
Nouvelles où il est dit par Monseigneur il est entendu par Monseigneur
le Dauphin, lequel depuis a succédé à la couronne et est le roy Loys
unsieme; car il estoit lors es pays du duc de Bourgoingne."

The critics may have good reason for throwing doubt on Vérard's
statement, but unless he printed his edition from a M.S. made after
1467, and the copyist had altered the name of the Comte de Charolais to
"Monseigneur" it is not easy to see how the error arose, whilst on the