alludes to none of these transactions, I shall only add, that they unquestionably tended to estrange the Duke of Burgundy from the English alliance.* The greater part of the events which are announced by the messengers took place long afterwards. King Charles the Sixth did not die, nor did his son assume the title, until October. Nor were the places enumerated lost at this time, or all at once indeed, the events of the war were for some time favourable to England. The surprise of Port Meulan, on the Seine, was followed by the more important successes under Salisbury;† and the two important battles of Crevant and Verneuil were gained by the Duke of Bedford in the summer of 1424; of these, Shakspeare takes no notice, though they are fully described by Holinshed; and the French army was so signally defeated at the latter, that it was compared to the battles of Crecy and Agincourt. It was not until the bastard of Orleans (Dunois) gained the battle of Montargis, that the French had any material advantage. * Monstrelet, 307, 406, 428, &c. It may be noted that Lord Poynings and Sir John Fastolfe are mentioned among the officers who served under Salisbury. Hol., 137. Hol. 142. Sismondi, xiii. 20, 34. Monst., ii., 419, 471. See Mackintosh's Hist. of England, i. 369. The Duke of Alençon was taken prisoner; and not ransomed until 1426. Above all, Talbot was not taken prisoner till the year 1429, when he was defeated at Patay.* No trace of divisions affecting the success of the war at this period is to be found in Shakspeare's usual authority. "The Duke of Gloucester was ordained protector of England, who, taking upon him that office, called to him wise and grave counsellors, by whose advice he provided and took order as well for the good government of the realm, and subjects of the same at home, as also for the maintenance of the wars abroad and further conquest to be made in France, appointing valiant and expert captains, which should be ready when need required." 66 The same authority says,† that Winchester was appointed jointly with Exeter, to the custody of the young king's person. Shakspeare's usual authority, therefore, does not justify the complaint of Beaufort that he is the only " Jack-out-of-office." But, I believe, that in this instance, the play is more correct than the Chronicle; and that, at least in the first instance, Exeter was sole guardian of the minor king, or assisted only by some officers of the royal household. The Duke of Bedford correctly styles himself * Hol., 165. Tit. Liv., 95; Elmham, 333. + P. 106. Regent of France; but I know not why he mentions St. George's day. Henry the Fifth died in August; and though some time must have elapsed in bringing the body with great ceremony to Westminster, the funeral must have been over long before the following April. We have now, with the same contempt of dates, the French before Orleans; the Dauphin, Alençon,* Regnier,† rejoice at the capture of Talbot ; they are then beaten by Salisbury, and the Maid of Orleans is introduced. The battle of Patay was, in truth, fought in 1429, some time after Joan's appearance in the field. Salisbury came over in 1428 (after the death of the Duke of Exeter), obtained some successes before Orleans, which are those mentioned in scene iii., and was killed, with Sir Thomas Gargrave, by a shot from the town, in the manner described in scene iv.§ Talbot was present, apparently under the command of Salisbury, who was succeeded by Suffolk; but the congratulations of the General on the delivery of the gallant soldier from a French prison are imaginary, as Talbot was not taken * John, son of John who was killed at Agincourt. + Duke of Anjou, of the royal family of France, and nominal King of Naples. Monst., ii. 484. § Ibid., 488. until after Salisbury's death, nor released until the year 1431. Shakspeare takes from Holinshed* the story with which everybody is familiar, of Joan knowing the Dauphin, whom she had never seen before, and choosing out a sword by description, from a chest of old iron. In the delivery of Orleans by this mysterious person, there is no very material departure from the Chronicle, except in the poetical license almost always adopted in such cases, of bringing Talbot and Joan into personal conflict. She entered into Orleans, and, after various conflicts, the English raised the siege.‡ But the recovery of Orleans by Talbot, with which the second act opens, is a stretch of the imagination, for it was not long after the abandonment of Orleans, that that eminent commander was defeated and taken,§ as I have said. The story of the French being surprised, and leaping from the walls in their shirts, is, by Shakspeare, transferred to Orleans from Mans, where it happened, according to Holinshed. It would have been more fair to mention a somewhat similar occurrence, when the English were so "unready," * P. 163. †The siege was raised on the 8th of May, 1429. as to be obliged "to flee in their pumps.' From the circumstance of the French being made to fly by a soldier who cries out Talbot! Malone infers that this play was founded on Hall, and other authorities, besides Holinshed, who was usually Shakspeare's. But, in truth, Holinshed says enough to justify the poet. "His only name was and yet is dreadful to the French nation, and much renowned amongst all other people."+ I do not know where Shakspeare found the story of Talbot and the Countess of Auvergne. There is nothing of it in Holinshed. We next meet with the French before Rouen,§ into which important city the Maid of Orleans obtains entrance by the stratagem of disguising her soldiers as peasants bringing corn to market. For this improbable story I find no foundation, unless it be a story which Holinshed relates of the capture of Evreux, some time afterwards, by six strong fellows, apparelled like men of the country, with sacks and baskets, as carriers of corn and victuals.|| Monstrelet says that, after Joan's death, Rouen was nearly lost by treachery. The Duke of Bedford is now brought in, sick : |