You may click on the footnote symbol to jump to the note, then click again on that footnote symbol and you will jump back to the same place in the text.
————————————————
From Chronicles of England, France and Spain and the Surrounding Countries, by Sir John Froissart, Translated from the French Editions with Variations and Additions from Many Celebrated MSS, by Thomas Johnes, Esq; Volume I; London: William Smith, 1848. pp. xxxvi-xlviii.
A CRITICISM
ON
THE HISTORY OF FROISSART
TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH OF M. DE LA CURNE DE ST. PALAYE.
BY THOMAS JOHNES.
============
I HAVE laid before you the views with which Froissart wrote his Chronicles, the care he took to be informed of all the events which were to make parts of it, and the rules he had imposed on himself in writing it. I shall at present examine if he has been exact in observing these rules; what are the defects and advantages of his history: what is the form and style of it. From thence I shall pass to the manuscripts and editions we have of it; then to the abridgments and different translations which have been published.
Froissart is accused of partiality; and this accusation is become so general, that it seems to have acquired the character of notoriety; whose privilege is to supersede proofs. Froissart is said to have sold his pen to the English, who paid him a considerable pension; and, by a necessary consequence of his affection for them, he is unfavourable to the French. Bodin, Pasquier, Brantôme, Sorel, la Popelinière, le Laboureur, decide against him in the most positive terms. It seems even that his readers, prejudiced by the connexions which Froissart had with the English, may have some reason to distrust everything he relates to their advantage. In truth, he begins by saying, that he had written his history at the solicitations of Robert de Namur, a near relation of the queen Philippa, and a vassal of the crown of England, which he usefully served against France. In another part he informs us, that he was of the household of Edward III. the most cruel enemy of the French; and that his queen, to whom he was secretary, had not only, by her liberalities, enabled him to travel into various parts in order to enrich his history, but that she had generously paid him for his labours in it.
In short, the first twenty-six chapters of his Chronicle solely concern the history of England, which has been the reason why it has been called the “Chronicles of England” in several manuscripts. From thence it has been concluded that Froissart, from his intimate attachment to the court of England, must be a violent partisan of that nation, and the enemy of its enemies. Nothing more was wanted for the most innocent accounts, if given by any other historian, appearing as poisonous if issued from his pen: but, in order to judge if this suspicion has any foundation, I will run over the period of which he has transmitted to us the history, in examining successively the different situations he was in when he wrote the various parts of it.
Froissart cannot be suspected of partiality during the first years of the reign of Edward III. This prince never forgot that his uncle, king Charles le Bel, had given him an asylum in his kingdom; when, with his mother, Isabella of France, he had escaped from the persecutions of the Spencers, who governed the mind of his father, Edward II. The court of France had not any misunderstanding with that of England during the reign of Charles. I pass over for a moment the forty years which followed from 1329, when the succession to the crown of France being opened by the death of Charles le Bel, the bonds which had united the kings of France and England became themselves the source of divisions and of xxxvii the most murderous wars; and I come to the times which succeeded the death of queen Philippa in 1369, a period when Froissart, no longer residing in England, had attached himself to Winceslaus, duke of Brabant. This prince, brother to the emperor Charles IV., was, in fact, uncle to Anne of Bohemia, who was afterwards queen of England, by her marriage with Richard II.; but he was also in the same degree of relationship with Charles V. of France, the son of his sister, and preserving a strict neutrality between the two rival crowns, he was invited to the coronation of Charles V. and of Charles VI. He obtained even in the last of these ceremonies the pardon of the count de St. Pol, whom the king’s council wished to put to death for the crime of high treason.
Froissart, who informs us of this circumstance, with which he must have been well acquainted, tells us another, which clearly shows that Winceslaus ever preserved the friendship of king Charles, as well as that of his council. During the time the war was carrying on with the greatest obstinacy, he obtained a passport for the princess Anne of Bohemia to go to England, where she was to marry Richard II. Charles and his uncles accompanied this favour with the most obliging letters, adding, they only granted it out of friendship to him. Froissart had not any interest to write against France during the time he passed with this prince; he had, shortly afterwards, still less, when he was secretary to the count de Blois, who crowned a life, completely devoted to the interests of France, by the sacrifice of the interests of his own family. The most trifling marks of ill-will against France would have exposed him to lose not only the good graces of his master, but the fruits of his historical labours, which he had induced him to continue, and which he so generously recompensed. The historian therefore, fearful of the reproaches which might be made him for being too good a Frenchman, reproaches very different from those which have been since made him, thinks himself bound to justify, in the following terms, what he relates of the inviolable attachment of the Bretons to the crown of France against the English, vol. iii, chapter lxv. p. 240, year 1387. “Let no one say I have been corrupted by the favour which the count Guy de Blois (who has made me write this history) has shown unto me, and who has so liberally paid me for it that I am satisfied, because he was nephew to the true duke of Brittany, and so nearly related as son to count Louis de Blois, brother-german to Charles de Blois, who, as long as he lived, was duke of Brittany; no, by my troth, it is not so; for I will not speak at all, unless it be the truth, and go straight forward, without colouring one more than another: besides, the gallant prince and court, who have made me undertake this history, had no other wish but for me to say what is true.”
Since Froissart in all these times, which carry us almost to the end of his Chronicle, cannot be suspected of hatred to the French, nor of affection to the English; I return to those years I have omitted from 1329 to 1369, of which he passed a considerable part in England, attached to the king and queen, and living in a sort of familiarity with the young princes, their children: it is in respect to these years, that the suspicion of partiality to the English can subsist with the greatest force. It was difficult, in a court where everything breathed hatred to France, for him to preserve that perfect neutrality which the quality of an historian demands; and that he should not lean towards that passion of princes to whom he owed his present fortune, and from whom he expected more considerable establishments. One might find reasons to weaken this prejudice in the sweetness and moderation which queen Philippa ever preserved in the midst of all these wars; who calmed the fury of her husband at the siege of Calais, and who obtained, by her instances, the pardon of the six generous citizens of that town whom he had condemned to death. I might add, that if Froissart was of the household of king Edward, he was also of the household of king John; and it seems he was attached to this prince even at the time when he was in England.
But, without seeking to combat these prejudices by others, I shall simply consult the text of Froissart, which must, in this respect, be the rule for our judgment. After having read him with all the attention I am capable of, without having remarked one single trace of the partiality they reproach him with, I have examined with the utmost care some principal points, where naturally it ought to have been the most apparent.
The accession of Philip de Valois to the crown had incensed all England, who adopted the chimerical pretensions of Edward III. This was a delicate circumstance for an historian, xxxviii who, living in the midst of a court, and a nation so strongly prejudiced, was determined not to quit the line of duty. Now, these are the terms in which Froissart relates this event, after having mentioned the deaths of the kings, Louis Hutin, Philip le Long, and Charles le Bel: “The twelve peers and barons of France did not give the realm of France to their sister, who was queen of England, because they declared and maintained, and still resolve, that the kingdom of France is so noble, that it ought not to descend to a female, nor consequently to the king of England, her eldest son; for thus they determine, that the son of a female cannot claim any right of succession as coming from his mother, when the mother herself has not any right; so that, for these reasons, the twelve peers and the barons of France unanimously decreed the kingdom of France to my lord Philip, nephew to the good king Philip of France, before-mentioned, and took from the queen of England and her son the right of succeeding to the last king, Charles. Thus, as it appeared to many persons, did the kingdom of France go out of the straight line of succession, which occasioned very great wars in consequence,” &c. This whole passage presents nothing but what must make one admire the courage and candour of the historian, when even he should have added these words, “it appeared to many persons;” since it is not any matter of doubt that the succession passed from the straight line to the collateral branch. Nevertheless, some malignant intention was thought to lurk beneath, and the words “took from” having offended some readers, they have added in the margin a sort of correction, which I have see in two manuscripts in a hand almost as ancient as the manuscripts themselves: “They never could take away what they had never been in possession of, nor had any right to. They never took it away; for neither the foresaid lady, nor her son, had even a right to it; but Froissart shows he was partial to the English.”
The homage which king Edward III. paid to the king of France, hurt exceedingly the delicacy of the English: they had disputed for some time, and with great warmth, on the form in which it was to be made; seeking to curtail it of all that was humiliating to them. As the king of France firmly supported the prerogatives of his crown, and obliged Edward to acquit himself of this duty according to the terms which had been practised by his predecessors, an historian who was desirous of being complaisant would have slightly passed over this article. Froissart, however, insists upon it as much as he is able; he neither omits the difficulties which the English made, nor the authorities which king Philip opposed to them; and he accompanied these details with the original acts the most proper to confirm them; so that, if the kings of France should ever have occasion to verify their rights, the deposition alone of Froissart would furnish an authentic and incontestable title.
The English accuse the French of not being very scrupulous in observing treaties; and maintain, that sir Geoffry de Charni acted by the secret orders of the king of France, when, in contempt of a truce which had been made, he attempted to surprise Calais in 1349. Rapin embraces this opinion, and supports it by the testimony of Froissart, whom he quotes in the margin. I know not from what copy, nor what manuscript, he has taken his authority; but, for my part, I read in all the printed and in all the manuscripts these words, which are quite contrary to his sentiments: “I believe, that Geoffry de Charni had never spoken of it to the king of France; for, the king would never have advised him to attempt it, on account of the truce.” The English again impute to Charles V. the infraction of the treaty of Bretigny, which they first broke, if we believe the French. Far from finding anything in Froissart which favours the English pretensions, I believe that, if the terms in which he expresses himself were strictly examined, they would at least form a presumption against them. I do not despair but that one day a brother academician will give us all the proofs which a sound criticism, and a mature reading of the historical monuments of that age, can furnish on a point of history which is of equal consequence to the nation and to truth.
The single combat proposed in 1354 between the kings of France and of England, is still a matter of dispute between the historians of the two nations. According to the French, the challenge sent in the name of king John was not accepted by Edward; whilst the English say, their king dared the king of France to battle, but that he refused the combat: Froissart decides formally for the French. “The king of France,” says he, “went after him as far as St. Omer, and sent to him (the king of England) by the marshal d’Authain, and by several xxxix other knights, that he would fight with him, if he pleased, body to body, or strength against strength, any day he would name: but the king of England refused the combat, and re-crossed the sea to England; and the king of France returned to Paris.”
To these examples I could add a great number of other passages where he gives much praise, as well to the people, as to the lords who signalized themselves by their attachment to the party of the French, and wherein he neither spares those who had declared themselves against, nor those who had cowardly abandoned them. In addition to what he says of the fidelity of the Bretons, and of the counts de Blois, their legitimate sovereigns, he praises the zeal with which several lords of Scotland received the French fleet sent in 1385 to assist them against the English. The earl of Douglas, to whom he appears much attached, and in whose castle he had spent several days in his travels into Scotland, seems to be of this number. At the same time he declaims against those whose bad faith and ingratitude rendered this armament fruitless. He speaks in the strongest terms of the presumption of the duke of Gueldres, who dared to declare war against the king of France (Charles VI.) in 1397, and of the insolence with which he expressed himself in his declaration of war. He applauds the just indignation which induced this monarch to march in person to chastise the pride of this petty prince.
In short, of all the nations whom he speaks of in his history, there are but few whom he has not sometimes marked with odious epithets. According to him, the Portuguese are passionate and quarrelsome; the Spaniards envious, haughty, and uncleanly; the Scots perfidious and ungrateful; the Italians assassins and poisoners; the English vain-boasters, contemptuous, and cruel. There is not one trait against the French; on the contrary, this brave nation supports itself, according to Froissart, by the vigour and strength of its knighthood, which was never so totally overwhelmed by its misfortunes, as not in the end to find some marvellous resources in its courage. The historian also seems to have taken a pride in having been born a Frenchman, in telling us that he owed to this title the good reception which a French esquires gave him, when he lodged with him at Ortez.
It is true, that the king of England, and his son the prince of Wales, seem to have been, as long as they lived, the heroes of his history; and that, in the recital of several battles, he is more occupied with them than with the king of France. But, where is the Frenchman of candour, who will not find himself forced to give these princes the utmost praise? Besides, does not our historian render justice to the valour and intrepidity of king Philip de Valois, and of king John? Nothing can surpass the praises he gives as well to the wisdom as to the ability of king Charles V.; and above all, that glorious testimony which he makes no difficulty to put into the mouth of the king of England: “There never was a king who so little armed himself; and there never was a king who gave me so much to do.”
I think I have fully established, by all that you have just read, that Froissart was not that partial historian he has been accused of. Nevertheless, I think it will be more sure to read him with some circumspection, and that one ought, as much as may be possible, never to lose sight, I repeat it, of two objects which I have particularly endeavoured to make observed in the preceding pages: I mean to say, on one hand, the details of his life, his different attachments to divers princes and to certain lords, the connexions he had or the friendships he contracted with various persons; on the other, the situations in which he was placed when he wrote his history, what parts of it were undertaken at the solicitation of the count de Namur, a partisan of the English, and those which he composed by the orders of the count de Blois, a friend to France. For if one is determined to persuade oneself that he ought to be disposed to favour the English in all he relates until 1369, from the same reason he should lean to the French in all the ensuing years until the conclusion of his Chronicle. I ought not to neglect to mention that his prejudices are sometimes visible when he enters into the minuter details, as one may be convinced of by the praise he gives to the piety and other virtues of the count of Foix, strongly contrasted by those actions of cruelty he had just before related. But when an historian, disengaged from all passion, should hold an even balance between the different parties; when to this quality he adds that which cannot be refused to Froissart, I mean, a continual anxiety to be informed of every event, and of every particular, that may interest his readers; he will yet be very far from perfection, if to xl those acquirements he does not add sound criticism, which, in the multitude of discordant relations, knows how to separate everything that is distant from truth; or his work will otherwise be less a history, than a heap of fables and popular rumours.
Notwithstanding all Froissart tells us of the care he took to hear both sides, and to compare their different accounts with each other, often with the original pieces, I think he may be accused of some little negligence on this head. His manner of life allowed him but little leisure to make all the reflections and all the comparisons which such an examination would require. In those countries whither his active curiosity carried him, other attentions occupied his mind. Charged sometimes with secret commissions, he endeavoured to insinuate himself into the good graces of those princes he visited, by compositions of gallantry, by romances, by poetry; and the love he ever had for pleasure took such possession of both his time and his heart, that his mind must have been often turned from the serious meditations of the cabinet, of which naturally it was not very capable. I am not afraid to say, that his manner of life is to be found in some sort retraced even in his Chronicles. One sees in them tumultuous meetings of warriors of all ages, degrees, and countries; feasts; entertainments at inns; conversations after supper, which lasted until a late hour; where every one was eager to relate what he had seen, or done: after which, the travelling historian, before he went to bed, hastened to put on paper everything his memory could recollect. One sees in them the history of events which happened during the course of almost a century, in all the provinces of the kingdom, and of all the people in Europe, related without order. In a small number of chapters one frequently meets with several different histories, begun, interrupted, recommenced, and again broken off; and in this confusion the same things repeated, whether in order to be corrected, contradicted, or denied, or whether to be augmented.
The historian seems to have carried even to his composition of the Chronicle his love of romances, and to have imitated the disorder which reigns in these sort of works; from which one might say he has affected even to borrow their style. Thus, for example, when he begins a narrative, he frequently uses this expression, “Now the tale says;” and when he speaks of the death of any one, or some other melancholy event, he adds, “but amend it he could not;” phrases which are to be met with in almost every page of the romances of the Round Table. However, all I say of this romantic taste of Froissart, which he seems to have preserved in his history, applies solely to the style he makes use of; for I have never once observed that he attempts to embellish it with the marvellous. The faults which are met with contrary to historical exactness, arise solely from the natural confusion of his mind, the precipitation with which he wrote, and the ignorance he must necessarily have been in respecting many things, which would have escaped his inquiries. What he relates of distant countries, such as Africa, Hungary, Tartary, and, in general, the eastern parts of the world, is full of the grossest blunders. In his time commerce had not then formed any connexion with those countries and our own: what was known of them, was founded on the faith of those whom accident had carried thither, and who had resided too short a time among them to gain sufficient information respecting the manners, customs, and history of these people. But if Froissart has committed many faults in what he relates to us, the greatest, without doubt, is to have spoken at all of what he could not but imperfectly know.
All these defects and imperfections do not prevent his Chronicle from being considered as one of the most precious monuments of our history; and that the perusal of it should not be as agreeable or as instructive to those who, not confining themselves to the knowledge of general facts, seek in the details, whether of particular events, whether of the usages of that age, to develop the character of mankind, and of the centuries which have passed.
Froissart was born to transmit to posterity a living picture of an age, enemy to repose; and which, amid the intervals of troubles with which it was almost continually agitated, found relaxation only in the most tumultuous pleasures. Besides the wars of so many nations which he describes, and in which he informs us of divers usages respecting the ban and arrier ban, the attack and defence of places, fortifications, detachments, skirmishes, orders of battle, artillery, marine, the armour of those on foot, and those on horseback; one finds in this history everything which can excite curiosity with regard to the nobility xli and knighthood, their challenges, their deadly combats, tilts, tournaments, entries of princes, assemblies, feasts, balls, the dresses of both sexes; so that his chronicle is for us a complete body of the antiquities of the fourteenth century. One must own that these details only attract attention from their own singularity; they are related without study, and without art: it is, in truth, the familiar conversation with a man of understanding, who has seen a great deal, and tells his story well. Nevertheless, this amiable story-teller knows how, at times, and in particular when he speaks of any grand event, to unite the majesty of history with the simplicity of a tale. Let any one read, among other things, among so many battles which he has so excellently painted; let him read the recital of the famous battle of Poitiers, they will there see in the person of the prince of Wales a hero, far greater by the generosity with which he made use of his victory, by his attentions to a conquered prince, and by the respect he always paid him, than by those efforts of courage which had made him triumph. I do not believe there is anything which can equal the sublimity of this morsel of history, nothing which can more elevate the heart and mind. Others, of a very different nature, have their value in their simplicity: such is the episode of the love of the king of England for the countess of Salisbury; the tender and affecting recital of which does not yield to the most ingenious and best-written romances. The historian sometimes takes a gay tone; as in the chapter wherein he speaks of the impatience of the young king Charles VI. to receive his new bride; and in that wherein he relates the jokes which this prince made on his uncle, the duke of Berry, who, at a time of life not very suitable for love, married a young and amiable wife.
The taste of the author is very visible in the manner which he treats these subjects; but as the age he lived in knew how to conciliate all things, this taste did not exclude the fund of devotion which runs through the course of his work. It is only to be wished that he had not degraded his religion by a credulity ridiculously superstitious; false miracles, prophecies, enchantments, have nothing in them so absurd as not to find in him an unbounded and blind belief. Every one knows the tale he tells of the demon Gorgon. One can scarcely comprehend how he can connect with Christianity the example which he draws from the fable of Actæon to justify the probability of an adventure of the same sort, which makes part of this tale. He has besides been reproached with having dishonoured history by his too great minuteness. I agree that we would readily have dispensed with his telling us at what sign those lodged of whom he was speaking, and from pointing out the inns where he himself has sometimes taken up his quarters; but I cannot equally condemn the love adventures, the feasts, and ceremonies, of which he has left us descriptions. When his narrations shall not be of subjects sufficiently noble, yet he paints so agreeably and so truly the age of which he writes the history, that it would, I think, be ungrateful to make any complaints.
I have inserted summarily in this judgment a sketch of the opinions which different authors have given him, and they may be consulted. I will add that of an author who knew better than any other the full value of a ready and natural genius. “I love,” says Montaigne, “historians very unaffected or excellent: the unaffected, who have not wherewithal to add of their own, and who are only careful to collect and pick up everything which falls within their notice, and to put down everything without choice and without sorting, giving us the opportunity of wholly judging of their truth. Such for example is the good Froissart, who has gone on with his work with such a frank simplicity, that, having committed a fault, he is no way ashamed of avowing it, and correcting it at the place he is informed of it; and who tells us the diversity of rumours which were current, and the different accounts that were told to him. It is history, naked and unadorned; every one may profit from it, according to the depth of his understanding.”
I come now to the editions of Froissart. We have three black-letter ones, and two posterior to them: that which I believe to be the oldest, is by Anthony Verard, at Paris, without a date, three volumes in folio. The second is, Paris, by Michael le Noir, the 15th July, 1505, two volumes in folio, a handsome type. The third is, Paris, by Galliot du Pré, 1530, three volumes in folio. The fourth, Lyons, by John de Tournes, 1559, 1560, 1561, three volumes in folio, revised and corrected by Denys Sauvage. The fifth, which copies xlii exactly the fourth, is Paris, by Gervais Mallot, 1574, three volumes in folio*. There is reason to believe, from the manner in which father Long expresses himself on the subject of the editions of Froissart, that there may be others where there have been united into one body his Chronicle, with the first continuation, by an anonymous writer, until the year 1498, and with a second continuation until the year 1513. But these works have never been printed together, This is not the only mistake which this learned librarian has made in the same article, as I will some time hence explain, when I speak of these continuations. He also speaks of an historical work, printed under this title: “Order of the entry and happy arrival in the city of Paris of Isabella de Baviere, queen of France, wife of Charles VI. in the year 1389, extracted from the fourth book of the History of Froissart;” without noticing either the date or place of its impression. I am ignorant if this is not an old fragment of Froissart which Sauvage had consulted, that had been printed before the black-letter editions, and of which I have never been able to gain any knowledge. To return to those editions I have pointed out, I shall fix principally on that of Sauvage, and endeavour to show, at the same time, what opinion should be formed of the black-lettered editions which preceded his.
If the historian has been accused of showing too great a hatred against the French in several parts of his Chronicle, the editor has been equally accused of showing too great an inclination to them, by suppressing everything which might displease them. Perhaps this charge is only made in consequence of the first; and readers, prejudiced on one hand that Froissart had been an enemy of the French, surprised on the other at not finding any traces of this pretended enmity in his history, may have judged, without further reason, that Sauvage had retrenched, through love to his country, all that the historian had written through hatred to it. The French, with whom Sauvage, according to this mode of reasoning, ought to have found favour, have not been less hard upon him on another head. According to several, he has altered and disfigured the proper names; he has changed the simple language of the times of Froissart to substitute his own; in which he has rather rendered the history more obscure than he has enlightened it, and has only caused those editions which were prior to his own to become more scarce, and more dear. We shall see if this is the recompense that all the trouble he gave himself deserved: but I ought first to speak of the manner in which he laboured at this edition, and the assistance he had, according to the account which he gives himself.
Sauvage, having first transcribed the printed copy of Galliot du Pré, compared it with the two other black-letter editions, when he found the difference between them so trifling, that he thought he ought to consider all three but as the same. He then collated his text with a printed fragment still more ancient; then with the third volume of “La Mer des Histories,” in which Froissart has been copied from the beginning until the 177th chapter; and lastly, with two abridgments in MS. which he indicates, not being acquainted with the authors, by the names of “La Chaux and de Sala,” who had communicated them to him. The editor, in acknowledging that these abridgments, or manuscripts, were so much damaged, that he was frequently obliged to guess the meaning, have been at times very useful to him, gives notice that he did not follow their punctuation; but, persuaded that one cannot be too exact in religiously preserving the language of ancient authors, he follows, with a scrupulous attention, the orthography, the ancient words, and ancient modes of speech, although they were very different from what they were when the first copies came from the hands of Froissart. He, nevertheless, avows that, without derogating from the respect due to the ancient text, he has thought himself justified in making some changes, but solely, when he has been under the indispensable necessity of seeking the aid of better historians, to give a xliii meaning to passages which were in want of it. Even in these cases, the only ones in which he has taken the liberty of making any changes, he has had the precaution to place in the margin the original reading, however defective it might be; leaving, by these means, the reader the power of judging of the corrections he had made. With regard to proper names, and the names of places, he has not touched them, from the impossibility of correcting them with success. The editor addresses the four volumes of Froissart to the constable de Montmorency, by as many dedicatory epistles. One sees in the first, and by an advertisement to his readers, that the edition he had already given of several of our historians were but preparatory to a general history of the Gauls and of the kingdom of France, which he was then at work on.
Sauvage promises nothing relative to his edition of Froissart which he has not faithfully performed; as one may be convinced of by following the notes which he added. I do not say that he has always well chosen from the different texts he had under his eyes; but, if the corrections he proposes are not all equally just, there are many which offer a clear and very probable meaning of passages which, in the old editions, are a collection of words without connexion, and without sense. With regard to the language, besides his attention never to change anything of the ancient words, he accompanies them with an explanation whenever he thinks them not sufficiently intelligible. His zeal in this respect is more praiseworthy than his intelligence. It is surprising that, after having published several of our old authors, he was not better acquainted with their language, and that he should add such unnatural explanations and etymologies.
As the chronology of Froissart was sometimes defective, Sauvage has reformed it in those places which appeared to him most in need of it. He has often recalled to the reader’s memory distant passages, in order to conciliate them, or to show their contradiction; or, in short, to demonstrate the connexion of certain facts to each other; but his attempt in this part is scarcely worth mentioning. Some genealogies, which regard persons of whom Froissart speaks, as well as some remarks on divers places, whose position he attempts to fix, by relating the different names they are called by, show that the editor had not absolutely neglected these two objects. One must not be surprised that so many foreign names should not always be exactly correct; besides their having been changed since then, one should not impute as blame, either to the author or editor, the faults of copyists who have incorrectly read them, and who have written them according to the pronunciation or orthography of their language and age; for not only are the names read in as many different ways as there are manuscripts, but they often vary in the same MS. as often as they are met with. The only means to remedy this is to clear up Froissart by himself, in collating the various passages where the same name is found; and this is what Sauvage has done; and for greater security he has read over five times the text of his author; however, when he could not draw any advantage from this repeated reading, he has made use of every assistance from any quarter he could find. He appears, in fact, to have very carefully studied the maps and descriptions of those countries the historian speaks of, and also to have consulted the people of those countries. One observes, that, when he had retired to Lyons to give himself up more freely to study, he went to reconnoitre in that neighbourhood the field of battle of Brinay, or Brinais, in which the duke of Bourbon had been defeated in 1360 by the free companies. The description he gives of it is very instructive, and serves to clear up the circumstances of the event. An epitaph which he had read in a church at Lyons serves at another time to prove the falsity of a date in Froissart. In short, there is scarcely any historian of importance, of whatever country he might be, whom Sauvage had not seen, in order the better to understand him on whom he was at work, and to make him better understood by others, and to confirm or to rectify his testimony. One may count nearly forty authors whom he cites in his margins, as well relative to the history of France, as to that of England, Scotland, Flanders, Germany, Spain, Italy, Hungary, ad Turkey. I add, that he had consulted the original acts, since he has inserted in his annotations the ratification of the treaty of Bretigny, done by the prince of Wales at Calais, after having transcribed with his hand upon a copy from the same prince, collated by a “Trésorier des Chartes.”
If, then, the edition of Sauvage is still very important, it has not any defects but what the xliv preceding editions have in common with it; to which, however, it is infinitely superior. The editor, well versed in our antiquities and our history, exact and indefatigable, proves, by the constant use he makes of the two manuscripts, by the judgment he bears of their insufficiency, and by the regrets he utters at not being able to meet with better, that he has been in greater want of assistance, than of good will, good faith, and capacity. In his time manuscripts, buried in the libraries of ignorant monks, or in the archives of private persons, and unknown to their possessors, were lost to the learned world. Times have since changed, thanks to the attention of ministers, who neglect nothing for the public good, there is scarcely a man of letters to whom manuscripts of all ages are not become a sort of property. Nothing would be wanting to the good fortune of this age, if, with such abundant succours, there could be found men as laborious as Sauvage to take advantage of them; for, I have not a doubt but that, if he had had the manuscripts we possess, he would have given us an excellent edition of Froissart.
The number of those known at this day is so considerable, that, after the Bible and the Fathers, I do not believe there is any work of which there have been so many copies; which shows the great esteem it has been held in during every age. In the Royal Library alone, there are upwards of thirty volumes in folio, which contain separately some one of the four books into which this history is divided. The numbers 6760, 8317, 8318, 8319, 8320, 8324, 8331-2, 8332, 8334, 8335 and 36 joined together, 8334; and the numbers of the manuscripts of Colbert, united with those of the Bibliothèque du Rois, 15, 85, and 231, include the first volume. The numbers 8321, 8330, 8333, 8337, and 8338, added together with those of Colbert, 16 and 86, compose the second volume. The numbers 8325, 8328, 8337, and 8338, added to those of Colbert, 87 and 232, the third volume. The numbers 8329, 8331, 8341, 8344, added together, and that of Colbert, 17, compose the fourth volume†.
I should extend this essay to too great a length if I was to describe the form, the age, the titles, the omissions, or imperfections, and other singularities, which distinguish these manuscripts. In regard to other and more essential differences, I shall say in general, that the greater part consist in transpositions of some articles, changes, additions or retrenchments of words, of omissions sometimes considerable; abbreviations of several chapters, or of many events; vague transitions, useless recapitulations of the foregoing chapters; certain phraseology, which, like formulas, are repeated in every page; and some interpolations of the copyists, which, swerving only to swell out the volume, have been wisely curtailed by Sauvage in his printed edition. I will not quote any other example but the passage where, speaking of the affection of Edward III. for the princess of Hainault, whom he married, he says, “A fine spark of love therefore struck him;” to which the copyist adds these words, “which madam Venus sent him by Cupid the god of love.” However, among these frivolous additions there may have been some of importance, which it would be proper to search for in those parts that offer any difficulty, or in those articles which demand a serious discussion.
After these general observations, I will say one word of the principal singularities which I have noticed in some of these MSS. Those of the numbers 8317, and 15 of Colbert, are remarkable for the correction which has been put on their margins in the article that mentions Philip de Valois’s accession to the crown of France. The same hand has also added to his last manuscript a note, which is written on one of the blank leaves which precede the Chronicle: “Two verses which the peers of France sent to king Edward of England, at the time he disputed the succession to the crown of France.
“Credo Regnorum qui cupis esse duorum
Succedunt mares huic regno non mulieres‡.”
In number 8318, one reads in the same hand-writing with the manuscript, that it was xlv given to John duke of Berry the 8th of November, 1407, by William Boiseratier, master of requests, and counsellor to this prince. If it is the same which has since been given by M. de Chandenier to M. le Laboureur, as this last believed, it would be rendered the more precious from this circumstance, that there would be found in it very considerable differences, that he says he has observed in this manuscript, from the printed copies, and more especially from that of Sauvage; or it would convince us of the falsity of this imputation, which appears to me very suspicious. But as the copy of M. le Laboreur, as he himself informs us, contained miniatures representing the principal events of the history, and that the one which Boisratier presented to the duke of Berry does not contain any, it is certain that it cannot be the same. Although the miniatures, head-pieces, capital letters illuminated and embossed with gold, in the MS. 8319, are of great beauty; it must, nevertheless, yield in this respect to number 8320, from which much may be learn regarding warlike customs, ceremonies, dresses, and other points of antiquity. The reverend father Montfaucon has taken from them the prints of the entry of queen Isabella of France, and the arrest of the king of Navarre, which he has inserted in his “Monuments François.” Notwithstanding this I believe, that in these miniatures, which are not, at the most, earlier than the middle of the fifteenth century, the painter has confounded the dresses of his own age with those of the times whose history he was painting.
One sees at the beginning of several MSS. the author represented differently dressed, sometimes as a canon, with his surplice and aumusse§; sometimes in a purple robe, presenting his work to the king of France, or to some other prince, seated on his throne, and crowned. The king of England is known by his robe embroidered with leopards in the number 8331-2, and the queen of England in number 15 of Colbert’s collections. The most ancient of all the manuscripts of the first volume are the numbers 8318 and 8331-2, which appear to me to be of the end of the fourteenth century: and though many things are deficient in each of them, their antiquity ought to give them the preference. I have the same opinion respecting the MS. 8333, being the most ancient of the second volume; though it does not seem to me to have been written earlier than the middle of the fifteenth century. The number 8321 is a continuation of number 8320; there are fewer miniatures, but they are equally beautiful; which is the only merit they have; for otherwise they are, properly speaking, but an extract of Froissart, and frequently many chapters are omitted together.
Number 16, which is the same writing as number 15, of which it is a continuation, contains, besides the second volume, a part of the third, as far as these words of the 44th chapter, page 151, of the edition of Sauvage: “Thus was broken off the expedition by sea at this time;” to which it adds, “which cost the kingdom of France C. M. francs, thirty times counted.” Number 8330 has for title, “The third volume of the Chronicles of Froissart;” although it contains but the second. By a similar mistake one reads, at the end of number 8325, which concludes the third volume, “Here ends the second volume of the Chronicles of Froissart.” This MS., which is but of the middle of the fifteenth century, is that in which the language of old times is the most preserved: perhaps it has been copied from some other more ancient and better than those which remain to us. There is at the end some circumstances concerning Froissart, which are also in the MSS. 8328 and 232, and which are not in the printed copies. It is more from the antiquity of the style, that makes me consider the MS. 8329, although scarce earlier than the end of the fifteenth century, as the best we have for the fourth volume. One finds in it, as in the numbers 8331, 8341, 42, and 17, two important additions. The first is the preface, which I have noticed in the life of Froissart; the second terminates the whole of his Chronicle, when the author, towards the end, speaking of the death of Richard, that he would not enter into any detail of it, from want of having sufficient information. The addition is a sort of letter, true or false, which is addressed to him, and by which he is informed of all the particulars; such as had been written by a man worthy of belief, who was then in England. The manner with which this fact is related has not been forgotten by the English historians, who have mentioned the different rumours which had gone abroad on this subject. Number 17 seems to have been written by the same hand xlvi as 15 and 16, and the three added to the MS. of the third book, which is wanting, made perhaps the work complete.
Under the number 169 of the Coislin library, at present in that of St. Germain-des-Prés, are comprehended four volumes, three of which are of the same hand-writing; that is to say, of the middle of the fifteenth century, containing the first, the third, and last book of Froissart. The fourth, which is of the same writing, but more beautiful, is another copy of the last book, with the addition which I have just mentioned, concerning the death of Richard. M. Mahudel has communicated to me a MS. of the beginning of the fifteenth century, without a title, and which may have been thought written by Froissart; but it is only a very succinct abridgment, in which has been preserved, as much as possible, the original text of the historian until the end of the first volume, where the abridgment ceases. It is divided into six books, of which the first two end with these words, “Here finishes the first (the second) book of this second volume of the Chronicles of England, and consequently the seventh (the eighth) of the four volumes parciaulx.” One reads also at the ends of the sixth, “Here finishes the second volume of the Chronicles of England.” This MS. probably made part of four volumes of a compilation of a history of England, divided each into six books; such nearly as our Chronicles of St. Denys. The first volume would have contained events anterior to Froissart; and as the second, which we have, includes an abridgment of his first volume, one may presume that the two following would, in like manner, have contained that of the three other volumes, and perhaps also the history of the times posterior to them. This abridgment, however, is the same as that of La Chaux, which Sauvage has made use of; I discover the marks by which he has pointed it out, with the exception of the first leaf, which may have been lost since that time.
To this great number of MSS. others must be added, which contain only very short abridgments of the Chronicle of Froissart; and which are to be found in the Royal Library, among the MSS. of the Colbert collection. Such are the numbers 169, which includes part of the first and second volumes abridged; 258, nearly conformable to the foregoing: but where they have added at the end four pages, containing “The tenor of the Letters of alliance of France with Scotland” in 1379, with the names of those lords, as well Scots as French, who signed the treaty; and 2444, which comprehends the abridgment of the four volumes. This is preceded by a preface, wherein the abbreviator having said he should follow Froissart “chapter by chapter,” adds, “and because this same Master John Froissart has not made an index to his first book; and by means of the index to a book one may, at one glance, see those parts which one may be desirous to read; I have resolved to divide this first book into one hundred and twenty-seven chapters.” We see nothing in these MSS. which either establishes the pretended enmity of Froissart against the French, nor which justifies the accusation brought against Sauvage of having altered the text of his historian. But a magnificent MS. at Breslaw furnishes, according to some writers, an incontestable proof of it. The learned world, say they, believe they have an entire Froissart; it has been grossly deceived by Sauvage, who has not preserved the tenth part of it in his edition. One may reply to this charge; 1st, That Sauvage will be always exempt from reproach, since he has given us the text of Froissart, such as he had seen it in the known copies of his time. 2dly, That the description they give us of the miniatures of this MS. of Breslaw, makes us believe that it cannot be much older than towards the end of the fifteenth century; and that, consequently, it is but of very moderate authority. In short, after the agreement of so many other MSS. of which many even have been written in England, or destined for that country, since the author is represented as offering his book to the king and queen of England, it will not be easy to persuade the world that the single MS. of Breslaw contains alone such very considerable differences. At least it becomes our prudence to suspend our judgment, until they shall have published the MS. itself, or some of those passages which as said to have been retrenched. One cannot too eagerly press the possessors of it to allow the public to participate of a treasure so infinitely precious to the lovers of history. If, hitherto, we have been in an error, we will cheerfully turn back; and there is not a man of letters possessing sense, who, laying aside all national interest, would not ardently desire to have the Chronicles of Froissart such as they came from the hands of the author. Many MSS. of Froissart are xlvii to be found in the libraries of foreign countries. There is one in the library of the cathedral of Tournay, according to the report of several Flemish librarians¶; three in England, according to the catalogue of MSS. in that kingdom; which also mentions some manuscript notes collected by Mr. Ashmole; and others again, which may be seen in the new catalogue of MSS. by father Montfaucon.
Besides the ancient abridgments of Frosisart, Sleidan, full of admiration for this historian, and anxious that the utility which may be drawn from him should be common to all ages and nations, made in 1537 a Latin abridgment, which was afterwards translated into French and English by P. Golin, in 4to. London, 1608. In a preface or epistle, which precedes the Latin edition, the author recommends the study of the History of France above all others, and particularly that of Froissart, whose candour he praises, and whom he only finds fault with for being sometimes too minute in his military details; and in his conversations with princes. Foreign writers have accused Sleidan of not having composed this abridgment with the disinterestedness and fidelity that was to have been expected from a man of so great a reputation, and to have wished to favour the French too much; to have passed over the most brilliant actions of the English, where he quits the sense of his author, in writing otherwise than Froissart had done: this last reproach does not seem to me founded. With regard to omissions, he has taken that liberty which an abbreviator ought to be allowed, to attach himself chiefly in extracting what he thinks suitable for his purpose; and that Sleidan, who at the time was living in France with Frenchmen, may, without any want of candour, have attached himself principally to those facts which concerned them. It will not be so easy to justify Belleforêt, who, giving a French abridgment of Froissart, has contented himself with translating literally Sleidan, without ever mentioning the author whom he translated.
The English, whom the reading of Froissart interests in so particular a manner, have in their language a translation of the Chronicles of Froissart, composed by sir John Bouchier, lord Berners, by order of king Henry VIII., and printed towards the end of his reign. There is also one in Flemish, printed by Guerrit Vander Loo, in folio; without counting that in the same tongue which Vossius had seen in manuscript.
I shall not say anything of these translations, not having met with either. That of Bouchier is, they say, more correct than the French editions, in regard to proper names¥; this must, however, be understood to mean English names. The Flemish translation must have the same advantage with regard to proper names, and names of places in Flanders. They may both be of great utility to whoever should wish to give a good edition of Froissart.
* M. de St. Palaye does not seem to have known all the editions of Froissart. I have three of different dates to those he mentions.
1. A most superb copy on vellum, in four volumes, which originally belonged to the Soubise library, purchased at the sale of the Bibliotheca Parisiana; printed in black letter, by Guillaume Eustace, at Paris, 1514.
2. An edition by Denys Sauvage, in four volumes, printed by Michael Sonnius, Paris, 1574. This had belonged to Mr. Secretary Craggs.
3. An edition by Denys Sauvage, in four volumes, printed for Michael de Roigny, Paris, 1574. This had belonged to Mr. Tyrwhitt.
[All Mr. Johnes’s MSS. were destroyed at Hafod by fire.]
† M. Buchon, in his recent French edition, has made diligent use of all the MSS. which he could hear of; and has settled a text which frequently differs from his predecessors. He has not, however, admitted the additions made by Mr. Johnes from the MSS. in the Hafod Library. — ED.
‡ To re-establish the measure and the sense of the first verse, one must, I think, add the word Rex: regnorum qui Rex cupis esse duorum. And to make Edward feel the application, one may, instead of Credo, read Crede, or Credito, of which Credo is perhaps an abbreviation. With regard to the second, the number of syllables are there which an hexameter verse requires; and that should be sufficient not to quarrel with the measure. — ST. PALAYE.
§ “Aumusse” is a sort of bracelet of fur, which canons wear on their arms, when dressed. I cannot find any English word to translate it.
¶ M. de St. Palaye is ignorant how rich this country is in MSS. of Froissart. There are many magnificent ones in the British Museum, at Oxford, Cambridge, and in other public and private libraries. I have in my library not less than six; but not one is a complete history.
¥ I am sorry I must contradict M. de St. Palaye, in his opinion of lord Berner’s translation. Had it been as he imagines, I should not have attempted to offer a new translation to the public; but, so far from being correct as to names, he tangles them nearly as bad as old Froissart. I cannot flatter myself with having succeeded to my own satisfaction, although I have taken every possible pains to make it as complete as the difficulties would allow me.
————————