re his own concluded
the discussion. He was attentive to his own business to a fault, for
he was rather more industrious than became a prince. Economical of his
own time, he demanded conscience of his subordinates and worked them
very hard. He was fond of his servants and fairly affable, though
occasionally sharp in his words. His memory was long and his anger
dangerous. As a rule, good sense swayed him, but being naturally
impetuous there was often a struggle between impulse and reason.

He was a God-fearing prince, was devoted to the Virgin Mary, rigid in
his fasts, lavish in charity. He was determined to avoid death and
to hold on to his own, tooth and nail, and was his father's peer in
valour. Like his father, he dressed richly; unlike him, he cared more
for silver than for jewels. He lived more chastely than is usual to
princes and was always master of himself. He drank little wine, though
he liked it, because he found that it engendered fever in him. His
only beverage was water just coloured with wine. He was inclined to no
indulgence or wantonness. "At the hour in which I write his taste for
hard labour is excessive, but in other respects his good sense has
dominated him, at least thus far. It is to be hoped that as his reign
grows older he will curb his over-strenuous industry."

As to the duke's sympathies, Chastellain regrets that circumstances
have turned him towards England. Naturally he belonged to the French,
and it was a pity that the machinations of the king, "whose crooked
ways are well known to God, have forced him into self-defence. Yet on
his forehead he wears the fleur-de-lys."

Chastellain acknowledges that Charles is accused of avarice, but
defends him on the ground that he has been driven into collecting
a large army. "A penny in the chest is worth three in the purse of
another." "To take precautions in advance is a way to save honour and
property," prudently adds the historian, who evidently flourishes
his maxims to strengthen his own appreciation of the duke's economy,
which, quite as evidently, is not pleasing to him. "I have seen him
the very opposite of miserly, open-handed and liberal, rejoicing in
largesse. When he came into his seigniory his nature did not change."
It was simply the exigencies of his critical position that forced him
to restrain his natural propensities and thus to gain the undeserved
reputation for parsimony.

It was also said that he was a very hard taskmaster, but