ted largely
to the book, but after he became King personally supervised the
publication of the collected stories.

For four centuries Louis XI was credited with the authorship of the
tales mentioned. The first person--so far as I am aware--to throw any
doubt on his claim was the late Mr. Thomas Wright, who edited an edition
of the _Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles_, published by Jannet, Paris, 1858. He
maintained, with some show of reason, that as the stories were told in
Burgundy, by Burgundians, and the collected tales were "edited" by a
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 Temeraire, 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. Verard, who published
the first edition, says in the Dedication; "Et notez que par toutes les
Nouvelles ou il est dit par Monseigneur il est entendu par Monseigneur
le Dauphin, lequel depuis a succede a 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 Verard'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
other hand, as Verard had every facility for knowing the truth, and some
of the copies must have been