This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

and the family of the Guises, which had all gathered there to accuse the Admiral before the King of the murder of the Duke of Guise. Furthermore, a year is now passing since the Admiral and the others were for two months in the King's court at Blois. The Pope's legate was also present, and Spanish ambassadors were present, who would not have ceased to urge and incite the King to that slaughter if they had sensed anything was being done about it; nor, in fact, was the occasion lacking. For unless the Admiral had striven to appease the Duke of Nevers gravely while the King was present, the controversy could not have been settled without weapons by any means; for the Duke's reputation had been gravely injured. They could certainly have been killed at that time if the King had thought anything about this matter beforehand, with the blame for the slaughter attributed to the controversy which had occurred between the Admiral and the Duke of Nevers, a Prince of great name. These writers add afterwards that those most excellent knights, who could not be defeated by arms, were killed unarmed by the ambushes and treachery of the Tyrant King. Will they therefore call them invincible, who, when they were equal in strength, fighting in a fair battle, were four times defeated, routed, and stripped of their camps? They were certainly very brave soldiers, and had been engaged in military matters for a long time and much. But why were they always defeated? I know for certain that this is known to God. And I do not want to behave like those writers who dare to rend the reputation of the King and the Duke of Anjou