This story involves so serious a charge against Charles of Burgundy
that the fact of his setting his signature to the treaty has been
indignantly denied. Certain authorities impugn the historian's
truthfulness rather than accept the duke's betrayal of his friends. It
is true that only a few months later than this negotiation, Commines
himself forsook the duke's service for the king's, a change of base
that might well throw suspicion on his estimate of his deserted
master.

Yet it must be remembered that he does not gloss over Louis's actions,
even though he had an admiration for the success of his political
methods, methods which Commines believed to be essential in dealing
with national affairs. In many respects he gives more credit to the
duke than to the king even while he prefers the cleverer chief. That
there is no documentary evidence of such a treaty is mere negative
evidence and of little importance.

The fact seems fairly clear that Charles of Burgundy was at a parting
of the ways, in character as in action. His natural bent was to tell
the truth and to adhere strictly to his given word. He felt that he
owed it to his own dignity. He felt, too, that he was a person to
command obedience to a promise whether pledged to him by king or
commoner. In the years 1469-1472 several severe shocks had been dealt
him. He had lost all faith in Louis, a faith that had really been
founded on the duke's own self-esteem, on a conviction that the weak
king must respect the redoubtable cousin of Burgundy.

The effect on Charles of his suspicions was to make him adopt the
tools used by his rival, or at least to attempt to do so. At the