Chronicles

“Froissart’s aim in the Chronicles was to record all the important events which had occurred in Western Europe in his lifetime, and one or two decades before. These events were predominantly military, but also political and social, as seen from the viewpoints of the courts in which he lived.”

If Froissart’s Chronicles has a thesis, it is to record “for posterity” (37) the events of his time. However, as Brereton notes, Froissart’s view is also filtered through that of the nobility.

“Although he had attached himself to the nobility, Froissart was a product of the merchant middle class in a region where it was especially powerful and militant. It is not easy to determine the part which this played in his work. His constant references to money values reflect an obsession which was common to both the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, and to which only the very greatest (and not always they) were immune. He writes with a fuller understanding and warmth of the citizenled revolts in the Netherlands than a purely aristocratic chronicler would have done, though generally careful to show that ultimately he is not on that side… Ethically, his conscience can be seen to be middle class, sentimental and not hierarchical – as, over the next three or four centuries, the whole conscience of Western Europe was to become. The germs of both protestantism and humanism are in his work, unrecognized naturally by himself, but detectable in retrospect.”

In spite of Froissart’s pro-nobility slant throughout the Chronicles, Brereton argues that Froissart’s middle-class background informs his writing. This is even to the point that he reflects the growing rise of the middle class at the expense of the noble rural landowning class that will shape European history.

“In order that the honourable enterprises, noble adventures and deeds of arms which took place during the wars waged by France and England should be fittingly related and preserved for posterity, so that brave men should be inspired thereby to follow such examples, I wish to place on record these matters of great renown.”

This is the purpose of Froissart’s Chronicles in his own words. As an “admirer of chivalry” (18), Froissart presents his work as being for a noble audience, who are likely to be warriors themselves. Still, even though that is the readership he anticipates, the Chronicles does address many topics other than military ones.

“This King Edward II governed his kingdom so badly and did such foolish things in the country because he was advised by an evil counsellor called Sir Hugh Despenser, who had been brought up with him from youth. Sir Hugh had managed things so well that he and his father, of the same name, had become the richest barons in England and were always the chief masters of the King’s council, ambitious to overtop the other great barons of the realm. This had disastrous consequences for themselves and the country.”

Much like Froissart’s account of the deposition of King Richard II and the rise of Henry IV at the end of the Chronicles, Edward II’s disastrous reign is blamed on bad advisors. Advisors like Hugh Despencer, not unlike Richard II’s own bad advisors, are motivated by self-interest and resentment of the kingdom’s nobility.

“It is hardly necessary to say that King Philip received the young King of England with all honour and dignity, and so did all the kings, dukes and counts who were present there.”

Courtesy is a major and expected aspect of the relationships between noble and royal courts in Europe and one of the tenets of chivalry. Even though relations between the kings of England and France were soon to break down, such courtesy among nobles and royals continues, such as when King Charles V holds church services to mourn the death of his family’s enemy, Edward III (198).

“The noble and gallant King of Bohemia, also known as John of Luxemburg because he was the son of the Emperor Henry of Luxemburg, was told by his people that the battle had begun. Although he was in full armour and equipped for combat, he could see nothing because he was blind…Then the King said a very brave thing to his knights: ‘My lords, you are my men, my friends and my companions-in-arms. Today I have a special request to make of you. Take me far enough forward for me to strike a blow with my sword.’ Because they cherished his honour and their own prowess, his knights consented…In order to acquit themselves well and not lose the King in the press, they tied all their horses together by the bridles, set their king in front so that he might fulfil his wish, and rode towards the enemy.”

Froissart likes to call attention to the courageous acts of individuals in battle. One of the most interesting examples of this is that of King John of Bohemia, who participated in the Battle of Crécy despite being blind.

“Then the noble Queen of England, pregnant as she was, humbly threw herself on her knees before the King and said, weeping: ‘Ah, my dear lord, since I crossed the sea at great danger to myself, you know that I have never asked a single favour from you. But now I ask you in all humility, in the name of the Son of the Blessed Mary and by the love you bear me, to have mercy on these six men’.”

This episode where Edward III considers killing six of the richest citizens of Calais in revenge illustrates two points. The first is how, despite the ideals of chivalry, brutality toward civilians was still an all-too-common element in medieval warfare. Secondly, it shows the accepted role powerful women played in being intercessors.

“No one could face the heavy, rapid fire of the English archers, who in that encounter killed and wounded many who found no chance of offering ransoms or pleading for mercy.”

Modern historians have argued that archery, especially the use of longbows, was a key reason the English were able to trounce the French in the early years of the Hundred Years War. Froissart’s observations on battle tactics, such as this quote, support this theory.

“At that time also there arose another company of men-at-arms and irregulars from various countries, who subdued and plundered the whole region between the Seine and the Loire. As a result, no one dared to travel between Paris and Vendôme, or Paris and Orléans, or Paris and Montargis, and no one dared to remain there.”

One of the negative impacts of the Hundred Years War did not just come from the pillaging and devastation caused by armies. As described in this quote, bands of unemployed mercenaries, the Free Companies, would also rob and despoil towns and the countryside.

“Their barbarous acts were worse than anything that ever took place between Christians and Saracens. Never did men commit such vile deeds. They were such that no living creature ought to see, or even imagine or think of, and the men who committed the most were admired and had the highest places among them. I could never bring myself to write down the horrible and shameful things which they did to the ladies.”

Froissart’s description of the Jacquerie is overwhelmingly negative, attributing to them numerous atrocities and providing no perspective on their views. As Brereton argues, this is different from Froissart’s description of the similar peasant revolts in England. Unlike with the Jacquerie, Froissart explains the causes of the English revolts and “divides the rebels into ‘bad’ and ‘good’” (21).

“The kingdom of France was plundered and pillaged in every direction, so that it became impossible to ride anywhere without being attacked.”

Despite Froissart’s emphasis on nobility and military matters, his writings do encompass what the consequences of war and political decisions are on the general populace. With the rise of the Free Companies (148-149), the cost of the Hundred Years War on the average people of France is huge.

“In those days there was a Franciscan friar at Avignon, a very learned and intelligent man, called Brother Jean de la Rochetaillade. He was kept imprisoned by Pope Innocent VI in the castle of Bagnols because of the extraordinary misfortunes which he predicted, firstly for the prelates and princes of the Church, on account of the excessive luxury and pomp in which they lived; and also for the Kingdom of France and the great lords of Christendom, because of the way in which they oppressed the common people […] He composed several books, well written and based on sound theological knowledge, one of which appeared in the year 1356. In it he described so many strange events for the years 1356 to 1360 that they seemed incredible, although several of them in fact occurred.”

This quote illustrates Froissart’s flexible attitude and light hand when it comes to religious issues despite being a priest himself. Froissart praises Rochetaillade’s intelligence and writings without really addressing the justness of his imprisonment by the pope. Note that Froissart also does not address any problematic aspects to Rochetaillade’s predictions even though such predictions could be considered heresy at the time (hence his imprisonment).

“There were pitiful scenes. Men, women and children flung themselves on their knees before the Prince, crying: ‘Have mercy on us, gentle sir!’ But he was so inflamed with anger that he would not listen. Neither man nor woman was heeded, but all who could be found were put to the sword, including many who were in no way to blame. I do not understand how they could have tailed to take pity on people who were too unimportant to have committed treason. Yet they paid for it, and paid more dearly than the leaders who had committed it. There is no man so hard-hearted that, if he had been in Limoges on that day, and had remembered God, he would not have wept bitterly at the fearful slaughter which took place.”

The rules of chivalry included protection of the weak. Still, even figures like the Black Prince who are otherwise admired by Froissart commit atrocities against civilians that horrify Froissart himself.

“As soon as the King of France was informed of the death of his cousin the Prince of Wales, he had his obsequies performed with great solemnity in the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. They were attended by his brothers and by many of the principal French barons and knights. And the King of France maintained that the Prince had ruled his domains nobly and worthily.”

Even though the Black Prince had caused a great deal of devastation to France, according to the rules of chivalry the king of France still gave him solemn respect after his death. However, he deserves respect not only as a fellow ruler, but also as one who fulfilled the ideals of chivalry.

“‘Good people, things cannot go right in England and never will, until goods are held in common and there are no more villeins and gentlefolk, but we are all one and the same. In what way are those whom we call lords greater masters than ourselves? How have they deserved it? Why do they hold us in bondage? If we all spring from a single father and mother, Adam and Eve, how can they claim or prove that they are lords more than us, except by making us produce and grow the wealth which they spend? They are clad in velvet and camlet lined with squirrel and ermine, while we go dressed in coarse cloth. They have the wines, the spices and the good bread: we have the rye, the husks and the straw, and we drink water. They have shelter and ease in their fine manors, and we have hardship and toil, the wind and the rain in the fields. And from us must come, from our labour, the things which keep them in luxury. We are called serfs and beaten if we are slow in our service to them, yet we have no sovereign lord we can complain to, none to hear us and do us justice. Let us go to the King – he is young – and show him how we are oppressed, and tell him that we want things to be changed, or else we will change them ourselves. If we go in good earnest and all together, very many people who are called serfs and are held in subjection will follow us to get their freedom. And when the King sees and hears us, he will remedy the evil, either willingly or otherwise.”

Here, Froissart records a speech attributed to one of the leaders of the peasant revolts in England, John Ball. It is unlikely that these are actually Ball’s words. However, it is an example of what Brereton describes as Froissart’s use of “dialogue[ …] to heighten the immediacy of his reports” and “a means of characterization” (23). Still, Brereton adds that this should not distract from Froissart’s reliability as a historian but rather represents how he synthesizes historical reporting with literary flair, not unlike a modern history novelist (24).

“After that victory, which was greatly to the honour and advantage of all Christendom and of all the gentry and nobility–for if the villeins had achieved their purpose, unexampled ravages and atrocities would have been committed by the commons in rebellion everywhere against the nobly born–the citizens of Paris with their long hammers became more cautious. How did they like the news of the defeat of the Flemings and the death of their leader? They were not cheered by it. Neither were the Goodmen in a number of other towns….”

This is a key passage for understanding Froissart’s views on political power and who should wield it. As Brereton says, as sympathetic as Froissart may be of the Flemish revolts, at least compared to the Jacquerie and the English peasant revolts, he is still “generally careful to show that ultimately he is not” on the “side” of the Flemish (22).

“At the time when I was with him, Count Gaston of Foix was about fifty-nine. I can say that, though I have seen many knights, kings, princes and others in my life, I have never seen one who was so finely built, with better-proportioned limbs and body or so handsome a face, cheerful and smiling, with eyes which sparkled amiably when he was pleased to look at anyone. He was so accomplished in every way that it would be impossible to praise him too highly. He loved everything which it was right to love and hated whatever deserved hatred. He was a shrewd nobleman, bold in action and sound in judgement. He never kept unbelievers about him. He ruled his estates grandly. He said numerous prayers daily, reciting the Psalter at night, the Hours of Our Lady, of the Holy Spirit and of the Cross, with the Vigils for the Dead. Every day he had five francs given away in small coins for the love of God, and these alms were distributed at his door to all kinds of people. He was generous and open-handed. He knew exactly from whom it was proper to take and to whom to give. He loved dogs more than all other animals and was very fond of hunting, both in summer and winter. He took great pleasure in arms and love. He always disliked excessive extravagance and required an account of his wealth once every month.”

Froissart attends the court of Count Gaston of Foix in 1388 to gather information for his third book. Froissart is treated well and provides a wealth of intimate information about the count that he likely would not have been able to gather from a distance even with his close friendships with other nobles. This demonstrates Froissart’s dedication to providing accurate information and why many historians consider his work to be a major primary resource for information regarding the Hundred Years War and the Middle Ages.

“‘That battle was a godsend to the companions, for they were very hard up. They all grew rich on good prisoners and the towns and fortresses they took in the archbishopric of Lyons and down the Rhône. The crowning touch to the campaign was the capture of Pont-Saint-Esprit, for then they made war on the Pope and the Cardinals and really made them squeal.”

Froissart’s recounting of the Bascot de Mauléon’s stories offers a view on the life of a member of a Free Company. With this quote, we see their desire for plunder and pay and their lack of scruples over attacking and looting even the Church.

“The King of England’s uncles, the Dukes of York and Gloucester, with the Earls of Salisbury, Arundel, Northumberland and Nottingham and the Archbishop of Canterbury, were all allied together against the King and his council. Their discontent was great and they said in private: ‘This Duke of Ireland twists the King round his finger and does what he likes in England. The King listens only to bad people, of mean birth in comparison with princes. As long as he has his present council things cannot go right, for a kingdom can never be well governed nor a sovereign properly advised by bad people. It always happens that, when a poor man rises in the world and is honoured by his master, he becomes corrupt and ruins the people and the country. A base man has no idea of what honour means, but wants to grab everything and gobble it up, just like an otter in a pond destroying all the fish it finds there. What good can come of this intimacy between the Duke of Ireland and the King? We know his ancestry and where he came from and we fear that England will be entirely ruled by him, and the King’s uncles and blood-relations left aside. That is not a thing to be tolerated.’”

In a perhaps unintentional parallel with Froissart’s account of the downfall of King Edward II, Froissart presents King Richard II as the victim of inept and corrupt advisors. Also, in another example of Froissart’s use of dialogue, Richard II’s uncles convey an explanation as to why kings are better served by nobles, who are supposedly less likely to be motivated by greed and self-interest and to have a sense of honor.

“It should be repeated that the English and Scots, when they meet in battle, fight hard and show great staying-power. They do not spare themselves, but go on to the limits of endurance. They are not like the Germans, who make one attack and then, if they see that they cannot break into the enemy and beat him, all turn back in a body. Not so the English and Scots, who order things differently. They stand their ground in the battle, dauntlessly wielding axes and other weapons for as long as their breath lasts. And when they surrender to each other according to the law of arms, they treat their prisoners well without pressing too hard for money, behaving chivalrously to one another, which the Germans do not. It would be better for a knight to be captured by infidels, out-and-out pagans or Saracens, than by the Germans.

Besides being a glimpse into Froissart’s ideas about national characteristics, this also shows what Froissart considers chivalric and military ideals. Not only should knights display courage, but they should also act compassionately toward their prisoners. These characters are also compared unfavorably to what Froissart claims are the behaviors of German knights in war (345-346).

“and we beg all those noble knights and foreign squires who are willing to come not to imagine for a moment that we are doing this out of pride, hatred or malice, but in order to have the honour of their company and to get to know them better, a thing which we desire with our whole hearts. And none of our shields shall be covered with iron or steel, nor shall the shields of those who come to joust against us. Nor shall there be any other unfair advantage, fraud, trickery or evil design, nor anything not approved by those appointed by both sides to guard the lists.’”

This is another quote that expresses the ideals of chivalry, as understood by Froissart. No matter what conflicts between the nations of medieval Europe there may be, knights and nobles still belonged to an international brotherhood united by honor and their martial abilities that can be displayed in friendly competition.

“‘Even Sir William of Windsor, who had longer experience of campaigning on the Irish border than any other English knight, never succeeded in learning the lie of the country or in understanding the mentality of the Irish, who are very dour people, proud and uncouth, slow-thinking and hard to get to know or make friends with. They have no respect for pleasant manners or for any gentleman, for, although their country is ruled by kings, of whom there are a large number, they will have nothing to do with courtly behaviour, but cling to the rough ways in which they have been brought up.’”

While Froissart depicts both the English and the Scottish in equally sympathetic terms (345), his views on the Irish are more negative. However, it is worth noting that this presentation of the Irish comes not from Froissart’s personal experience but from his conversation with an English knight who spent time in Ireland. 

“‘Things cannot go on like this,’ the Duke [of Gloucester] continued. ‘He’s raising such heavy taxes from the merchants that they’re growing restless, and no one knows where the money goes to. I know he spends plenty, but it’s on silly and futile things, and his people have to pay the bill. There will soon be serious trouble in this country. The people are beginning to grumble and say that they won’t stand it much longer. He’s letting it be known, since there is a truce now with France, that he thinks of leading an expedition to Ireland and employing his knights and archers that way. He’s been there before and gained very little, for Ireland is not a place where there’s anything worth winning. The Irish are a poor and nasty people, with a miserable country that is quite uninhabitable.”

Brereton presents the Duke of Gloucester as a prime example of how Froissart uses dialogue to draw out the personalities and views of the historical figures he describes. Given that Froissart knew Gloucester personally, Brereton speculates that the words Froissart attributes to Gloucester may have been “characteristic” (18).