PROSE CHRONICLES.
[Sidenote: Beginning of Prose Chronicles.]
[Sidenote: Grandes Chroniques de France.]
In all countries the use of prose for literature is chronologically
later than the use of poetry, and France is no exception to the rule.
The Chansons de Gestes were in their way historical poems, and they
were, as we have seen, soon followed by directly historical poems in
considerable numbers. It was not, however, till the prose Arthurian
romances of Map and his followers had made prose popular as a vehicle
for long narratives, that regular history began to be written in the
vulgar tongue. The vogue of these prose romances dates from the latter
portion of the twelfth century; the prose chronicle follows it closely,
and dates from the beginning of the thirteenth. It was not at first
original. The practice of chronicle writing in Latin had been frequent
during the earlier centuries, and at last the monks of three
monasteries, St. Benoit sur Loire, St. Germain des Pres, and St. Denis,
began to keep a regular register of the events of their own time,
connecting this with earlier chronicles of the past. The most famous and
dignified of the three, St. Denis, became specially the home of history.
The earliest French prose chronicles do not, however, come from this
place. They are two in number; both date from the earliest years of the
thirteenth century, and both are translations. One is a version of a
Latin compilation of Merovingian history; the other of the famous
chronicle of _Turpin_[131]. These two are composed in a southern
dialect bordering on the Provencal, and the first was either written by
or ascribed to a certain Nicholas of Senlis. The example was followed,
but it was not till 1274 that a complete vernacular version of the
history of France was executed by a monk of St. Denis--Primat--in French
prose. This version, slightly modified, became the original of a
compilation very famous in French literature and history, the _Grandes
Chroniques de France_, which was regularly continued by members of the
same community until the reign of Charles V, from official sources and
under royal authority. The work, under the same title but written by
laics, extends further to the reign of Louis XI. The necessity of
translation ceased as soon as the example of writing in the vernacular
had been set, though Latin chronicles continued to be produced as well
as French.
[Sidenote: Villehardouin.]
Long, however, before history on the great scale had been thus
attempted, and very soon after the first attempt of Nicholas of Senlis
had shown that the vulgar tongue was capable of such use, original prose
memoirs and chronicles of contemporary events had been produced, and, as
happens more than once in French literature, the first, or one of the
first, was also the best. The _Conquete de Constantinoble_[132] of
Geoffroy de Villehardouin was written in all probability during the
first decade of the thirteenth century. Its author was born at
Villehardouin, near Troyes, about 1160, and died, it would seem, in his
Greek fief of Messinople in 1213. His book contains a history of the
Fourth Crusade, which resulted in no action against the infidels, but in
the establishment for the time of a Latin empire and in the partition of
Greece among French barons. Villehardouin's memoirs are by universal
consent among the most attractive works of the middle ages. Although no
actually original manuscript exists, we possess a copy which to all
appearance faithfully represents the original. To readers, who before
approaching Villehardouin have well acquainted themselves with the
characteristics of the Chansons de Gestes, the resemblance of the
_Conquete de Constantinoble_ to these latter is exceedingly striking.
The form, putting the difference between prose and verse aside, is very
similar, and the merits of vigorous and brightly coloured language, of
simplicity and vividness of presentation, are identical. At the same
time either his own genius or the form which he has adopted has saved
Villehardouin from the crying defect of most mediaeval work, prolixity
and monotony. He has much to say as well as a striking manner of saying
it, and the interest of his work as a story yields in nothing to its
picturesqueness as a piece of literary composition. His indirect as well
as direct literary value is moreover very great, because he enables us
to see that the picture of manners and thought given by the Chansons de
Gestes is in the main strictly true to the actual habits of the
time--the time, that is to say, of their composition, not of their
nominal subjects. Villehardouin is the chief literary exponent of the
first stage of chivalry, the stage in which adventure was an actual fact
open to every one, and when Eastern Europe and Western Asia offered to
the wandering knight opportunities quite as tempting as those which the
romances asserted to have been open to the champions of Charlemagne and
Arthur. But, as a faithful historian, he, while putting the poetical and
attractive side of feudalism in the best light, does not in the least
conceal its defects, especially the perpetual jarring and rivalry
inevitable in armies where hundreds of petty kings sought each his own
advantage.
[Sidenote: Minor Chroniclers between Villehardouin and Joinville.]
The Fourth Crusade was fertile in chroniclers. Villehardouin's work was
supplemented by the chronicle of Henri de Valenciennes, which is written
in a somewhat similar style, but with still more resemblance to the
manner and diction of the Chansons, so much so that it has been even
supposed, though probably without foundation, to be a rhymed Chanson
thrown into a prose form. This process is known to have been actually
applied in some cases. Another historian of the expedition whose work
has been preserved was Robert de Clari. Baldwin Count of Flanders, who
also accompanied it, was not indeed the author but the instigator of a
translation of Latin chronicles which, like the _Grandes Chroniques de
France_, was continued by original work and attained, under the title of
_Chronique de Baudouin d'Avesnes_, very considerable dimensions.
The thirteenth century also supplies a not inconsiderable number of
works dealing with the general history of France. Guillaume de Nangis
wrote in the latter part of the century several historical treatises,
first in Latin and then in French. An important work, entitled _La
Chronique de Rains_ (Rheims), dates from the middle of the period, and,
though less picturesque in subject and manner than Villehardouin, has
considerable merits of style. Normandy, Flanders, and, the Crusades
generally, each have groups of prose chronicles dealing with them, the
most remarkable of the latter being a very early French translation of
the work of William of Tyre, with additions[133]. Of the Flanders group,
the already mentioned chronicle called of Baudouin d'Avesnes is the
chief. It is worth mentioning again because in its case we see the way
in which French was gaining ground. It exists both in Latin and in the
vernacular. In other cases the Latin would be the original; but in this
case it appears, though it is not positively certain, that the book was
written in French, and translated for the benefit of those who might
happen not to understand that language.
[Sidenote: Joinville.]
As Villehardouin is the representative writer of the twelfth century, so
is Joinville[134] of the thirteenth, as far as history is concerned.
Jean de Joinville, Senechal of Champagne, was born in 1224 at the castle
of Joinville on the Marne, which afterwards became the property of the
Orleans family, and was destroyed during the Revolution. He died in
1319. He accompanied Saint Louis on his unfortunate crusade in 1248,
but not in his final and fatal expedition to Tunis. Most of the few
later events of his life known to us were connected with the
canonisation of the king; but he is known to have taken part in active
service when past his ninetieth year. His historical work, a biography
of St. Louis, deals chiefly with the crusade, and is one of the most
circumstantial records we have of mediaeval life and thought. It is of
much greater bulk than Villehardouin's _Conquete_, and is composed upon
a different principle, the author being somewhat addicted to gossip and
apt to digress from the main course of his narrative. It has, however,
to be remembered that Joinville's first object was not, like
Villehardouin's, to give an account of a single and definite enterprise,
but to display the character of his hero, to which end a certain amount
of desultoriness was necessary and desirable. His style has less vigour
than that of his countryman and predecessor, but it has more grace. It
is evident that Joinville occasionally set himself with deliberate
purpose to describe things in a literary fashion, and his interspersed
reflections on manners and political subjects considerably increase the
material value of his work. It is unfortunate that nothing like a
contemporary manuscript has come down to us, the earliest in existence
being one of the late fourteenth century, when considerable changes had
passed over the language. With the aid of some contemporary documents on
matters of business which Joinville seems to have dictated, M. de Wailly
has effected an exceedingly ingenious conjectural restoration of the
text of the book, but the interest of this is in strictness diminished
by the fact that it is undoubtedly conjectural. The period of
composition of Joinville's book was somewhat late in his life,
apparently in the first years of the fourteenth century, and about 1310
he presented it to Louis le Hutin, though it does not appear what became
of the manuscript.
The period between Joinville and Froissart is peculiarly barren in
chronicles. Besides the serial publications already noticed, the
_Chroniques de France_ and the _Chroniques de Flandre_, there are
perhaps only two which are worth mentioning. The first is a _Chronique
des Quatre Premiers Valois_, written with exactness and careful
attention to authentic sources of information. The other is the
_Chronique_ of Jean Lebel, canon of Liege. This is not only a work of
considerable merit in itself, but still more remarkable because it was
the model, and something more, of Froissart. That historian began by
almost paraphrasing the work of Lebel; and though by degrees he worked
the early parts of his book into more and more original forms according
to the information which he picked up, these parts remained to the last
indebted to the author from whom they had been originally compiled.
[Sidenote: Froissart.]
Froissart was born in 1337 and did not die till after 1409, the precise
date of his death being unknown. There are few problems of literary
criticism which are more difficult than that of arranging a definitive
edition of his famous Chroniques[135]. In most cases the task of the
critic is to decide which of several manuscripts, all long posterior to
the author's death, deserves most confidence, or how to supply and
correct the faults of a single document. In Froissart's case there is,
on the contrary, an embarrassing number of seemingly authentic texts.
During the whole of his long life, Froissart seems to have been
constantly occupied in altering, improving, and rectifying his work, and
copies of it in all its states are plentiful. The early printed editions
represent merely a single one of these; Buchon's is somewhat more
complete. But it is only within the last few years that the labours of
M. Kervyn de Lettenhove and M. Simeon Luce have made it possible (and
not yet entirely possible) to see the work in all its conditions. M.
Kervyn de Lettenhove's edition is complete and excellent as far as it
goes. That of M. Luce is still far from finished. The editor, however,
has succeeded in presenting three distinct versions of the first book.
This is the most interesting in substance, the least in manner and
style. It deals with a period most of which lay outside of Froissart's
own knowledge, and in treating which he was at first content to
paraphrase Jean Lebel, though afterwards he made this part of the book
much more his own. It never, however, attained to the gossiping
picturesqueness of the later books (there are four in all), in which the
historian relies entirely on his own collections. Although Cressy,
Poitiers, and Najara may be of more importance than the fruitless
_chevauchee_ of Buckingham through France, the gossip of the Count de
Foix' court, and the kite-and-crow battles of the Duke de Berri and his
officers with Aymerigot Marcel and Geoffrey Tete-Noire, they are much
less characteristic of Froissart. The literary instinct of Scott enabled
him (in a speech of Claverhouse[136]) exactly to appreciate our author.
Some of his admirers have striven to make out that traces of political
wisdom are to be found in the later books. If it be so, they are very
deeply hidden. A sentence which must have been written when Froissart
was more than fifty years old puts his point of view very clearly.
Geoffrey Tete-Noire, the Breton brigand, 'held a knight's life, or a
squire's, of no more account than a villain's,' and this is said as if
it summed up the demerits of the free companion. Beyond knights and
ladies, tourneys and festivals, Froissart sees nothing at all. But his
admirable power of description enables him to put what he did see as
well as any writer has ever put it. Vast as his work is, the narrative
and picturesque charm never fails; and in a thousand different lights
the same subject, the singular afterglow of chivalry, which the
influence of certain English and French princes kept up in the
fourteenth century, is presented with a mastery rare in any but the best
literature. He is so completely indifferent to anything but this, that
he does not take the slightest trouble to hide the misery and the
misgovernment which the practical carrying out of his idea caused.
Never, perhaps, was there a better instance of a man of one idea, and
certainly there never was any man by whom his one idea was more
attractively represented. To this day it is difficult even with the
clearest knowledge of the facts to rise from a perusal of Froissart
without an impression that the earlier period of the Hundred Years' War
was a sort of golden age in which all the virtues flourished, except for
occasional ugly outbreaks of the evil principle in the Jacquerie, the
Wat Tyler insurrection, and so forth. As a historian Froissart is, as
we should expect, not critical, and he carries the French habit of
disfiguring proper names and ignoring geographical and other trifles to
a most bewildering extent. But there is little doubt that he was
diligent in collecting and careful in recording his facts, and his
extreme minuteness often supplies gaps in less prolix chroniclers.
[Sidenote: Fifteenth-Century Chroniclers.]
The last century of the period which is included in this chapter is
extremely fertile in historians. These range themselves naturally in two
classes; those who undertake more or less of a general history of the
country during their time, and those who devote themselves to special
persons as biographers, or to the recital of the events which more
particularly concern a single city or district. The first class,
moreover, is more conveniently subdivided according to the side which
the chroniclers took on the great political duel of their period, the
struggle between Burgundy and France.
The Burgundian side was particularly rich in annalists. The study and
practice of historical writing had, as a consequence of the Chronicle of
Baudouin, and the success of Lebel and Froissart, taken deep root in the
cities of Flanders which were subject to the Duke of Burgundy, while the
magnificence and opulence of the ducal court and establishments
naturally attracted men of letters. Froissart's immediate successor,
Enguerrand de Monstrelet, belongs to this party. Monstrelet[137], who
wrote a chronicle covering the years 1400-1444, is not remarkable for
elegance or picturesqueness of style, but takes particular pains to copy
exactly official reports of speeches, treaties, letters, etc. Another
important chronicle of the same side is that of George Chastellain[138],
a busy man of letters, who was historiographer to the Duke of Burgundy,
and wrote a history of the years 1419-1470. Chastellain was a man of
learning and talent, but was somewhat imbued with the heavy and pedantic
style which both in poetry and prose was becoming fashionable. The
memoirs of Olivier de la Marche extend from 1435 to 1489, and are also
somewhat heavy, but less pedantic than those of Chastellain. Dealing
with the same period, and also written in the Burgundian interest, are
the memoirs of Jacques du Clerq, 1448-1467, and of Lefevre de Saint
Remy, 1407-1436; as also the Chronicle of Jehan de Wavrin, beginning at
the earliest times and coming down to 1472. Wavrin's subject is
nominally England, but the later part of his work of necessity concerns
France also.
The writers on the royalist side are of less importance and less
numerous, though individually perhaps of equal value. The chief of them
are Mathieu de Coucy, who continued the work of Monstrelet in a
different political spirit from 1444 to 1461; Pierre de Fenin, who wrote
a history of part of the reign of Charles VI; and Jean Juvenal des
Ursins[139], a statesman and ecclesiastic, who has dealt more at length
with the whole of the same reign. Of these Juvenal des Ursins takes the
first rank, and is one of the best authorities for his period; but from
a literary point of view he cannot be very highly spoken of, though
there is a certain simplicity about his manner which is superior to the
elaborate pedantry of not a few of his contemporaries and immediate
successors.
The second class has the longest list of names, and perhaps the most
interesting constituents. First may be mentioned _Le Livre des Faits et
bonnes Moeurs du sage roi Charles V._ This is an elaborate panegyric
by the poetess Christine de Pisan, full of learning, good sense, and
sound morality, but somewhat injured by the classical phrases, the
foreign idioms, and the miscellaneous erudition, which characterise the
school to which Christine belonged. Far more interesting is the _Livre
des Faits du Marechal de Bouciqualt_[140], a book which is a not
unworthy companion and commentary to Froissart, exhibiting the kind of
errant chivalry which characterised the fourteenth century, and in part
the fifteenth, and which so greatly assisted the English in their
conflicts with the French. Joan of Arc was made, as might have been
expected, the subject of numerous chronicles and memoirs which have come
down to us under the names of Cousinot, Cochon, and Berry. The Constable
of Richemont, who had the credit of overthrowing the last remnant of
English domination at the battle of Formigny, found a biographer in
Guillaume Gruel.
Lastly have to be mentioned three curious works of great value and
interest bearing on this time. These are the journals of a citizen of
Paris[141] (or two such), which extend from 1409 to 1422, and from 1424
to 1440, and the so-called _Chronique scandaleuse_ of Jean de Troyes
covering the reign of Louis XI. These, with the already-mentioned
chronicle of Juvenal des Ursins, are filled with the minutest
information on all kinds of points. The prices of articles of
merchandise, the ravages of wolves, etc., are recorded, so that in them
almost as much light is thrown on the social life of the period as by a
file of modern newspapers. The chronicle of Jean Chartier, brother of
Alain, that of Molinet in continuance of Chastellain, and the short
memoirs of Villeneuve, complete the list of works of this class that
deserve mention.
Examples of the three great French historians of the middle ages
follow:--
VILLEHARDOUIN.
La velle de la saint Martin vindrent devant Gadres en
Esclavonie, si virent la cite fermee de halz murs et de
haltes torz, et pour noiant demandissies plus bele ne plus
fort ne plus riche. et quant li pelerin la virent, il se
merveillerent mult et distrent li uns a l'autre 'coment
porroit estre prise tel vile par force, se diex meismes nel
fait?' Les premieres nes vindrent devant la vile et
aencrerent et atendirent les autres et al matin fist mult
bel jor et mult cler, et vinrent les galies totes et li
huissier et les autres nes qui estoient arrieres, et
pristrent le port par force et rompirent la chaaine qui mult
ere forz et bien atornee, et descendirent a terre, si que li
porz fu entr'aus et la vile. lor veissiez maint chevalier et
maint serjant issir des nes et maint bon destrier traire des
huissiers et maint riche tref et maint pavellon.
Einsine se loja l'oz et fu Gadres assegie le jor de la saint
Martin. a cele foiz ne furent mie venu tuit li baron, ear
encor n'ere mie venuz li marchis de Montferrat qui ere remes
arriere por afaire que il avoit. Estiennes del Perche fu
remes malades en Venise et Mahis de Monmorenci, et quant il
furent gari, si s'en vint Mahis de Monmorenci apres l'ost a
Gadrez; mes Estienes del Perche ne le fist mie si bien, quar
il guerpi l'ost et s'en ala en Puille sejorner. avec lui
s'en ala Rotrox de Monfort et Ives de la Ille et maint
autre, qui mult en furent blasme, et passerent au passage de
marz en Surie.
L'endemain de la saint Martin issirent de cels de Gadres et
vindrent parler le duc de Venise qui ere en son paveillon,
et li distrent que il li rendroient la cite et totes les
lor choses sals lor cors en sa merci. et li dus dist qu'il
n'en prendroit mie cestui plet ne autre, se par le conseil
non as contes et as barons, et qu'il en iroit a els parler.
Endementiers que il ala parler as contes et as barons, icele
partie dont vos avez oi arrieres, qui voloient l'ost
depecier, parlerent as messages et lor distrent 'por quoi
volez vos rendre vostre cite? li pelerin ne vos assaldront
mie ne d'aus n'avez vos garde, se vos vos poez defendre des
Venisiens, dont estes vos quites.' et ensi pristrent un
d'aus meismes qui avoit non Robert de Bove, qui ala as murs
de la vile et lor dist ce meismes. Ensi entrerent li message
en la vile et fu li plais remes. Li dus de Venise com il
vint as contes et as barons, si lor dist 'seignor, ensi
voelent cil de la dedanz rendre la cite sals lor cors a ma
merci, ne je ne prendroie cestui plait ne autre se per voz
conseill non' et li baron li respondirent 'sire, nos vos
loons que vos le preigniez et si le vos prion.' et il dist
que il le feroit. Et il s'en tornerent tuit ensemble al
paveillon le duc por le plait prendre, et troverent que li
message s'en furent ale par le conseil a cels qui voloient
l'ost depecier. E dont se dreca uns abes de Vals de l'ordre
de Cistials, et lor dist 'seignor, je vos deffent de par
l'apostoile de Rome que vos ne assailliez ceste cite, quar
ele est de crestiens et vos iestes pelerin.' Et quant ce oi
li dus, si en fu mult iriez et destroiz et dist as contes et
as barons 'seignor, je avoie de ceste vile plait a ma
volonte, et vostre gent le m'ont tolu et vos m'aviez convent
que vos le m'aideriez a conquerre, et je vos semoing que vos
le facoiz.'
Maintenant li conte et li baron parlerent ensemble et cil
qui a la lor partie se tenoient, et distrent 'mult ont fait
grant oltrage cil qui ont cest plait desfet, et il ne fu
onques jorz que il ne meissent paine a cest ost depecier. or
somes nos honi, se nos ne l'aidons a prendre.' Et il vienent
al duc et li dient 'sire, nos le vos aiderons a prendre por
mal de cels qui destorne l'ont.' Ensi fu li consels pris; et
al matin alerent logier devant les portes de la vile, et si
drecierent lor perrieres et lor mangonials et lor autres
engins dont il avoient assez; et devers la mer drecierent
les eschieles sor les nes. lor commencierent a la vile a
geter les pieres as murz et as lors. Ensi dura cil asals
bien por v jors et lor si mistrent lors trencheors a une
tour, et cil commencierent a trenchier le mur. et quant cil
dedenz virent ce, si quistrent plait tot atretel com il
l'avoient refuse par le conseil a cels qui l'ost voloient
depecier.
JOINVILLE.
Au mois d'aoust entrames en nos neis a la Roche de
Marseille: a celle journee que nous entrames en nos neis,
fist l'on ouvrir la porte de la nef, et mist l'on touz nos
chevaus ens, que nous deviens mener outre mer; et puis
reclost l'on la porte et l'enboucha l'on bien, aussi comme
l'on naye un tonnel. pour ce que, quant le neis est en la
grant mer, toute la porte est en l'yaue. Quant li cheval
furent ens, nostre maistres notonniers escria a ses
notonniers qui estoient ou bec de la nef et lour dist 'est
aree vostre besoingne?' et il respondirent 'oil, sire,
vieingnent avant clerc et li provere.' Maintenant que il
furent venu, il lour escria 'chantez de par dieu'; et il
s'escrierent tuit a une voiz '_veni creator spiritus_.' et
il escria a ses notonniers 'faites voile de par dieu'; et il
si firent. et en brief tens li venz se feri ou voile et nous
ot tolu la veue de la terre, que nous ne veismes que ciel et
yaue: et chascun jour nous esloigna li venz des pais ou nous
avions estei neiz. et ces choses vous moustre je que cil
est bien fol hardis, qui se ose mettre en tel peril atout
autrui chatel ou en pechie mortel; ear l'on se dort le soir
la ou on ne set se l'on se trouvera ou font de la mer au
matin.
En la mer nous avint une fiere merveille, que nous trouvames
une montaigne toute ronde qui estoit devant Barbarie. nous
la trouvames entour l'eure de vespres et najames tout le
soir, et cuidames bien avoir fait plus de cinquante lieues,
et lendemain nous nous trouvames devant icelle meismes
montaigne; et ainsi nous avint par dous foiz ou par trois.
Quant li marinnier virent ce, il furent tuit esbahi et nous
distrent que nos neis estoient en grant peril; ear nous
estiens devant la terre aus Sarrazins de Barbarie. Lors nous
dist uns preudom prestres que on appeloit doyen de Malrut,
ear il n'ot onques persecucion en paroisse. ne par defaut
d'yaue ne de trop pluie ne d'autre persecucion, que aussi
tost comme il avoit fait trois processions par trois
samedis, que diex et sa mere ne le delivrassent. Samedis
estoit: nous feismes la premiere procession entour les dous
maz de la nef; je meismes m'i fiz porter par les braz, pour
ce que je estoie grief malades. Onques puis nous ne veismes
la montaigne, et venimes en Cypre le tiers samedi.
FROISSART.
Je fuis adont infourme par le seigneur d'Estonnevort, et me
dist que il vey, et aussi firent plusieurs, quant
l'oriflambe fut desploiee et la bruine se chey, ung blanc
coulon voller et faire plusieurs volz par dessus la baniere
du roy; et quant il eut assez vole, et que on se deubt
combatre et assambler aux ennemis, il se print a seoir sur
l'une des bannieres du roy; dont on tint ce a grant
signiffiance de bien. Or approchierent les Flamens et
commenchierent a jetter et a traire de bombardes et de
canons et de gros quarreaulx empenez d'arain; ainsi se
commenca la bataille. Et en ot le roy de France et ses gens
le premier encontre, qui leur fut moult dur; ear ces
Flamens, qui descendoient orgueilleusement et de grant
voulente, venoient roit et dur, et boutoient en venant de
l'espaule et de la poitrine ainsi comme senglers tous
foursenez, et estoient si fort entrelachies tous ensemble
qu'on ne les povoit ouvrir ne desrompre. La fuirent du coste
des Francois par le trait des canons, des bombardes et des
arbalestres premierement mort: le seigneur de Waurin,
baneret, Morelet de Halwin et Jacques d'Ere. Et adont fut la
bataille du roy reculee; mais l'avantgarde et l'arrieregarde
a deux lez passerent oultre et enclouirent ces Flamens, et
les misrent a l'estroit. Je vous diray comment sur ces deux
eles gens d'armes les commencierent a pousser de leurs
roides lances a longs fers et durs de Bourdeaulx, qui leur
passoient ces cottes de maille tout oultre et les perchoient
en char; dont ceulx qui estoient attains et navrez de ces
fers se restraindoient pour eschiever les horions; ear
jamais ou amender le peuissent ne se boutoient avant pour
eulx faire destruire. La les misrent ces gens d'armes a tel
destroit qu'ilz ne se scavoient ne povoient aidier ne ravoir
leurs bras ne leurs planchons pour ferir ne eulz deffendre.
La perdoient les plusieurs force et alaine, et la
tresbuchoient l'un sur l'autre, et se estindoient et
moroient sans coup ferir. La fut Phelippe d'Artevelle encloz
et pouse de glaive et abatu, et gens de Gand qui l'amoient
et gardoient grant plente atterrez entour luy. Quant le page
dudit Phelippe vey la mesadventure venir sur les leurs, il
estoit bien monte sur bon coursier, si se party et laissa
son maistre, ear il ne le povoit aidier; et retourna vers
Courtray pour revenir a Gand.
(A)insi fut faitte et assamblee celle bataille; et lors que
des deux costez les Flamens furent astrains et encloz, ilz
ne passerent plus avant, ear ilz ne se povoient aidier.
Adont se remist la bataille du roy en vigeur, qui avoit de
commencement ung petit bransle. La entendoient gens d'armes
a abatre Flamens en grant nombre, et avoient les plusieurs
haches acerees, dont ilz rompoient ces bachinets et
eschervelloient testes; et les aucuns plommees, dont ilz
donnoient si grans horrions, qu'ilz les abatoient a terre. A
paines estoient Flamens cheuz, quant pillars venoient qui
entre les gens d'armes se boutoient et portoient grandes
coutilles, dont ilz les partueoient; ne nulle pitie n'en
avoient non plus que se ce fuissent chiens. La estoit le
clicquetis sur ces bacinets si grant et si hault, d'espees,
de haches, et de plommees, que l'en n'y ouoit goutte pour la
noise. Et ouy dire que, se tous les heaumiers de Paris et de
Brouxelles estoient ensemble, leur mestier faisant, ilz
n'euissent pas fait si grant noise comme faisoient les
combatans et les ferans sur ces testes et sur ces bachinets.
La ne s'espargnoient point chevalliers ne escuiers ainchois
mettoient la main a l'euvre par grant voulente, et plus les
ungs que les autres; si en y ot aucuns qui s'avancerent et
bouterent en la presse trop avant; ear ilz y furent encloz
et estains, et par especial messire Loys de Cousant, ung
chevallier de Berry, et messire Fleton de Revel, filz au
seigneur de Revel; mais encoires en y eut des autres, dont
ce fut dommage: mais si grosse bataille, dont celle la fut,
ou tant avoit de pueple, ne se povoit parfurnir et au mieulx
venir pour les victoriens, que elle ne couste grandement.
Car jeunes chevalliers et escuiers qui desirent les armes se
avancent voulentiers pour leur honneur et pour acquerre
loenge; et la presse estoit la si grande et le dangier si
perilleux pour ceulx qui estoient enclos ou abatus, que se
on n'avoit trop bonne ayde, on ne se povoit relever. Par ce
party y eut des Francoiz mors et estains aucuns; mais plente
ne fut ce mie; ear quant il venoit a point, ilz aidoient
l'un l'autre. La eut ung molt grant nombre de Flamens occis,
dont les tas des mors estoient haulx et longs ou la bataille
avoit este; on ne vey jamais si peu de sang yssir a tant de
mors.
Quant les Flamens qui estoient derriere veirent que ceulx
devant fondoient et cheoient l'un sus l'autre et que ilz
estoient tous desconfis, ilz s'esbahirent et jetterent leurs
plancons par terre et leurs armures et se misrent a la
fuitte vers Courtray et ailleurs. Ilz n'avoient cure que
pour eulx mettre a sauvete. Et Franchois et Bretons apres,
quy les chassoient en fossez et en buissons, en aunois et an
mares et bruieres, cy dix, cy vingt, cy trente, et la les
recombatoient de rechief, et la les occioient, se ilz
n'estoient les plus fors. Si en y eut ung moult grant nombre
de mors en la chace entre le lieu de la bataille et
Courtray, ou ilz se retraioient a saulf garant. Ceste
bataille advint sur le Mont d'Or entre Courtray et Rosebeque
en l'an de grace nostre seigneur, mil iij'c. iiij'xx. et
II., le jeudi devant le samedi de l'advent, le xxvij'e.
jour de novembre, et estoit pour lors le roy Charles de
France ou xiiij'e. an de son eage.
FOOTNOTES:
[131] The chronicle of the pseudo-Turpin is of little real importance in
the history of French literature, because it is admitted to have been
written in Latin. The busy idleness of critics has however prompted them
to discuss at great length the question whether the _Chanson de Roland_
may not possibly have been composed from this chronicle. The facts are
these. Tilpin or Turpin was actually archbishop of Rheims from 753-794,
but nobody pretends that the chronicle going under his name is
authentic. All that is certain is that it is not later than 1165, and
that it is probably not earlier than the middle, or at most the
beginning, of the eleventh century, while the part of it which is more
particularly in question is of the end of that century. _Roland_ is
almost certainly of the middle at latest. Curiosity on this point may be
gratified by consulting M. Gaston Paris, _De pseudo-Turpino_, Paris,
1865, or M. Leon Gautier, _Epopees Francaises_, Paris, 1878. But, from
the literary point of view, it is sufficient to say that, while _Turpin_
is of the very smallest literary merit, _Roland_ is among the capital
works of the middle ages.
[132] Ed. N. de Wailly. Paris, 1874.
[133] Ed. P. Paris. 2 vols., 1879-80. It is characteristic of the middle
ages that this work usually bore the title of _Roman d'Eracle_, for no
other reason than that the name of Heraclius occurs in the first
sentence.
[134] Ed. N. de Wailly. Paris, 1874. Besides the _Histoire de St.
Louis_, Joinville has left an interesting _Credo_, a brief religious
manual written much earlier in his life.
[135] Ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove. 20 vols., Brussels. Ed. S. Luce, Paris,
in course of publication. The edition of Buchon, 3 vols., Paris, 1855,
is still the best for general use. Froissart's poems give many
biographical details which are interesting, but unimportant. He wandered
all his life from court to court, patronised and pensioned by kings,
queens, and princes. He was successively _cure_ of Lestines and canon of
Chimay. In early life he was much in England, being specially patronised
by Edward III. and Philippa.
[136] _Old Mortality_, chap. 35.
[137] Ed. Buchon. Paris, 1858.
[138] Chastellain has been fortunate, like most Flemish writers, in
being excellently and completely edited (by M. Kervyn de Lettenhove. 8
vols., Brussels).
[139] Ed. Michaud et Poujoulat.
[140] Ed. Michaud et Poujoulat.
[141] Ed. Michaud et Poujoulat, in whose collection most of the many
authors here mentioned will be also found.