these Memoirs, without changing their character
altogether. Goodwin, whose labours seem scarcely to
have been ever duly appreciated, has filled up the
outline here given, generally in a satisfactory
manner, though many original documents which have
been brought to light since his time have been
employed.]

[Footnote 191: See Monstrelet, c. 211.]

[Footnote 192: Goodwin thus comments on his
death:--"Thus fell the Duke of Burgundy, who, as he
had caused the Duke of Orleans to be assassinated
in the streets of Paris, so, _by the requital of
divine justice_, his own life was abandoned to vile
treachery." How very unwise and unsafe are such
comments upon the dispensations of Providence is
most clearly evinced here. Never was a more foul
murder, or more desperate defiance of all law,
human and divine, than the Dauphin was guilty of on
the bridge of Montereau: and yet, instead of "his
life being abandoned to vile treachery by the
requital of divine justice," he lived forty-two
years after his deed of blood, succeeded to the
throne of his father, rescued his kingdom from the
hands of the English, and died through abstinence
from food, self-imposed from fear of poison. Far
more wise and more pious is it to leave such
speculations, and to refer all to that day of final
retribution, when the _righteousness of_ the
supreme Ruler of man's destinies shall be made _as
clear as the light, and his just dealing as the
noon day_.]

This tragedy filled the people of France with affliction for the
murdered Duke, and with horror at the Dauphin's perfidy and (p. 260)
cruelty; but no one seemed to be rendered more decidedly hostile to
him for this act than his own mother and father. And whilst the son of
the murdered Duke swore he would never lay down his arms till he had
avenged his father's death upon his murderers, the King himself, by a
proclamation date