Contents
Introduction 2
1. Style and approach 12
2. The first campaign 25
3. The second campaign 41
Conclusion 52
Literature 54
Introduction
Vous savez que monsieur Bertrans, Qui moult fut hardi et valliantz, Traist hors du roialme de France Par sa proesce et sa puissance Toute la grande compaignie...1
Bertrand du Guesclin (1302?-1380) is and was one of the national heroes of France. Above he is described by one of his 'enemies': John Chandos (1320?-1369), an English general, who admired him greatly. Although Bertrand was of lower nobility, he attained the highest military position in France at the time as connétable de France – as the constable of France. He was one of the most outstanding military leaders of the Hundred Year’s War (1337-1453) between France and England, and thus became one of France's heroes in history.
The Hundred Year's War between France and England was a series of conflicts waged from 1337 to 1453. It was the result of a dynastic disagreement. William the Conqueror (1028-1087) became King of England in 1066, while remaining Duke of Normandy. As dukes of Normandy, the English kings owed homage from that moment on to the King of France. In 1337 Edward III of England (1312-1377) refused to pay homage to Philip VI of France (1293-1350), leading the French king to confiscate Edward's lands in Aquitaine. Edward responded by declaring that he, and not Philip, was the rightful king of France - a claim dating back to 1328 when Charles IV of France (1294-1328) had died without a male heir. A claim for the succession had been made for Edward through the right of his mother Isabella, sister of the deceased king. Instead, a cousin of the deceased king, Charles of Valois, had been crowned king. This question of legal succession to the French crown was central to the war over generations of English and French claimants.
1 J. Chandos, Life of the Black Prince by the Herald of sir John Chandos, edited from the manuscript in Worcester
College with linguisitic and historical notes by Mildred K. Pope, docteur de l'Université de Paris, resident tutor of Somerville College, Oxford and Eleanor C. Lodge, resident tutor of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford (Oxford 1910) verses
The family tree of the Valois, les Planttagenêts and les Évreux.
Source: G. Minois, La guerre de Cent Ans, naissance de deux nations (Sanit-Amand-Montrond 2008) 602.
Bertrand du Guesclin became noticed in this series of conflicts after he defeated Sir Thomas Canterbury (of whom hardly anything is known) in a duel and after he successfully defended the city of Rennes against an English siege in 1356-57 using guerrilla tactics. He was appointed captain of Pontorson. His next major victory was at the Battle of Cocherel in 1364 when he defeated the troops of Charles II the Bad (1332-1387), the king of Navarra. In 1366 and in 1368, Bertrand led bands of mercenaries, also known as the Grand Compagnies, out of France and into Spain, on behalf of the king. This was done to stabilize France and to help Henry of Trastámara (1334-1379) with this army of mercenaries, to gain the throne on his half-brother Peter I the Cruel (1334-1369), in order to give France an ally in the South. In 1370 he was appointed connétable de France and was recalled from Spain to fight the English on French soil again. The next few years he gave the French several victories, but died in 1380 from an illness, while besieging an English fortress at Châteauneuf-de-Randon.
During the years following Bertrand’s death in 1380, a rhymed chronicle was written. The exact year is unknown, although it must be before 1392 – a copy of the manuscript exists in England and is dated between 1380-1392.2 Furthermore, in 1387 a chronicle in prose was written on Bertrand du Guesclin's life.3 Some authors think this prose-version was based on the rhymed chronicle or is
2 http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=8125&CollID=58&NStart=35, visited on April 25, 2013. This date is based on the fact that the owner of La vie valliant's goods were confiscated in 1392, it seems unlikely the owner had this work made after so much of his goods were confiscated.
maybe even from the same author. Thus, the rhymed chronicle is generally assumed to have been written between 1380 and 1387.4 This rhymed chronicle exists of approximately 22.790 verses and is most commonly named La vie valliant de Bertran du Guesclin.5 Other names are simply La
Chronique de Bertrand du Guesclin6, le Chronique rimée7, Le Roumand8 or La Chanson de Bertrand
du Guesclin.9 La vie valliant is used as a title because the author seems to introduce his work thus, and therefore, this thesis will use that title as well.
Et je vous chanteray commencement et fin, De la vie valliant de Bertran de Gulaiequin10
Most about this work is unknown. There is no mention that La vie valliant was commissioned by anyone, there is no clear purpose of the work defined and the remarks to the sources used are vague. Even the name of the author is not certain. Most modern historians call him ‘Cuvelier’. The author names himself in the 23th verse, 'cilz qui le mist en rime est Cuveliers nonmez', but the names differ in the manuscripts.11 His relationship towards Bertrand is completely unknown. Most historians assume that Cuvelier did not know Bertrand personally, or only superficially.12
It has been said – and some modern historians take it for certain – that Cuvelier was the same as
4 Cuvelier and Charrière, Chronique de Bertrand du Gueslin par Cuvelier, trouvère du XIVième siècle, publiée pour la
première fois par E. Charrière 2 (Paris 1839) 352; Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson de Bertrand du Guesclin par Cuvelier, par Jean-Claude Faucon 3 (Toulouse 1990-1991) 8; D.J. Jamison, Bertrand du Guesclin et son époque (Paris
1866) 171 note and Y. Vermijn, ´Chacun son Guesclin: La réception des quarte versions de l'oeuvre de Cuvelier entre 1380-1480' (unpublished).
5 Cuvelier and Charrière, Chronique de Bertrand 1-2; Levine, 'Myth and antimyth in La vie valliant de Bertrand du
Guesclin', in: Viator 16 (1985) 259-276.
6 Cuvelier and Charrière, Chronique de Bertrand 1-2; Levine, 'Myth and antimyth',
http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/MMDB/composer/COM055.htm, visited last on April 25, 2013.
7 S. Luce, 'Du Guesclin au siège de Rennes' in: Biblipthèque de l'école des chartes 52 (1891) 615-618; C-P. de La Poix, chevalier de Fréminville, Histoire de Bertrand du Guesclin, considerée principalement sous le rapport stratégique,
poliorcétique et militaire (Brest 1841).
8 Cuvelier and Charrière, Chronique de Bertrand 1, VI.
9 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson; Vermijn, ´Chacun son Guesclin'. 10 Cuvelier, La chanson, verses 7-8.
11 Cuvelier, La chanson, verse 21; Cuvelier and Charrière, Chronique de Bertrand 1, VI and 2, 327, C. Tixier, Portrait
littéraire de Bertrand du Guesclin. Le héros Bertrand, son entrée sur la scène épique (Paris 1981) 9.
12 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 3, 37-38; M. Dupuy, Bertrand du Guesclin, capitaine d'aventure, connétable de
Jehan Li Cuneliers, a poet in service of the king.13 The names ‘Cuvelier’ and ‘Cunelier’ can easily be read as the same when hand-written. Since the descriptions in this work, concerning the court and battles of great importance to the court - such as the Battles of Cocherel, Poitiers and Chizey - contain relatively more details, employment by the court makes sense.14
There are three other ballads composed by this Cunelier/Cuvelier: Lorques Arthus, Alixandre et
Pari; Se Galaas et le puissant Artus; Se Genevre, Tristan, Yssout, Helainne, which all can be found in
the so-called Codex Chantilly (Musée Condé 564).15 These ballads are presumed to have been written either in employment of the papal court in Avignon or in employment of the Valois princes. Louis d'Anjou (1339-1384), brother of the king Charles V (1338-1380), is mentioned as a possible employer for these ballads.16 The ballads are signed with an an abbreviation for con or cum in French or Latin manuscripts. Jean-Claude Faucon, one of the editors of Cuvelier's works, therefore thinks the name of the author was Cunelier, not Cuvelier.17 But even he uses the spelling Cuvelier, probably since it is simply the most used spelling in the historiography. This thesis will do so as well.
The abbreviation which can be found in the Musée Condé 564, printed from Faucon 3, 24
La vie valliant has been received in very different manners. From negative comments such as 'le
poème pauvre Cuvelier'18 or 'ce pauvre Cuvelier'19, 'ni un historien ni un poète'20 and 'Cuvelier […]
13 http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/MMDB/composer/COM055.HTM; C. Chattaway, ‘The heroes of Philip the Bold’, in: Le
héros bourguignon. Historie et épogée 41 (Neuchâtel 2001) 27-37, there 33; G. Dulong and A. Sultan, ‘Nouvelles
lectures des chansons notées dans le Codex Chantilly’, in: Y. Plumley and A. Stone (eds.), A late Medieval songbook and
its context: new perspectives on the Chantilly Codex (Bibliothèque du Château de Chantilly, Ms. 564) (Turnhout 2010)
95-114, see 99 and Jamison, Bertrand du Guesclin 579. 14 Tixier, Portrait littéraire 121 note 9.
15 http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/MMDB/composer/COM055.HTM, chapter 55, 61, 63.
16 Y. Plumley and A. Stone, 'Cordier's picture-songs and the relationship between the song repetories of the Chantilly Codex and Oxford 213', in: Y. Plumley and A. Stone (eds.), A late Medieval songbook and its context: new perspectives
on the Chantilly Codex (Bibliothèque du Château de Chantilly, Ms. 564) (Turnhout 2010) 303-328, see 318-319.
17 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 3, 24.
18 R. Delachenal, Histoire de Charles V 5 (Paris 1931) 352.
19 E. Déprez, 'La bataille de Nájera: le communiqué du prince noir' in: Revue historique 136 (1921) 37-59, 48. 20 R. Bossuat, Histoire de la littérature française. Le Moyen Age (Melun 1951) 223.
préfère les anecdotes aux données de l'histoire'21 to very positive ones such as 'une oeuvre honnête et sincèrement épique'22, 'l’incontestable authorité du trouvère picard' - the trouvère from Picardy being Cuvelier here23 - and 'exact et autentique'.24 Some historians base their biographies of Bertand du Guesclin completely on this work.25 Others claim that the author never
met Bertrand and that La vie valliant should not be used as a reliable source.26 At least it can be
said that since the manuscripts sometimes differ, one should not take everything literally. Some mistakes have also been pointed out in years and locations.27
This variety in reception by modern authors has something to do with the questions concerning the commissioner and the sources of this work. When one assumes that the king, Philip the Bold (1342-1404) was the commissioner of La vie valliant, it makes sense that the author had entry to more official sources. Other historians assume that Cuvelier came by his ‘facts’ by talking to Bertrand’s family and comrades-at-arms. The theory that one accepts, determines the amount of authority this work is given. Therefore, this thesis aims to research to which extent Cuvelier's work can be accepted as a reliable source on Bertrand du Guesclin's life.
The question of Cuvelier being a reliable source or not, has not been answered fully yet. There is no paper which analyzes Cuvelier's facts, compared to other sources. Yet I think the discussion on Cuvelier needs, and lacks, exactly that. From 1990 to 1992, three books were written on the subject of La vie valliant by Jean-Claude Faucon.28 The first two of these books together form an edition of Cuveliers text, with remarks to the differences in the various manuscripts.29 In the third, Faucon explains all the debates on the background of this work and of the author. He does not provide an opinion on the reliability of Cuvelier, but his work does contain a chapter called
21 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 2, 96. 22 Tixier, Portrait littéraire 11, citing Léon Gautier.
23 J. Lemoine, 'Du Guesclin armé chevalier', in: Bibliothèque de l'école de chartes 56 (1895) 84-89, see 86. 24 De la Poix, Histoire de Bertrand Du Guesclin III.
25 M.S. Coryn, The Black Eagle: Bertrand du Guesclin, sword of France (New York 1934); Y. Jacob, Bertrand du Guesclin,
connétable de France (Saint-Etève 1999); Lemoine, 'Du Guesclin armé chevalier'; De la Poix, Histoire de Bertrand Du Guesclin; E.V. Stoddard, Bertrand du Guesclin, constable of France: his life and his times (New York 1897).
26 Dupuy, Bertrand du Guesclin, 334; Luce, 'Du Guesclin au siège', 616.
27 Cuvelier and Charrière, Chronique de Bertrand 1, 38 and 41-44; vol. 2, 336, 342, 358, 362, 366, 380; Jacob, Bertrand
du Guesclin, 49; Lemoine, 'Du Guesclin armé chevalier'; Stoddard, Bertrand du Guesclin, 56, 97.
28 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 1-3. 29 See attachment.
‘Sources’, which is a reference to sources used by Cuvelier.30 However, this chapter is completely based on Bertrands early years: from his childhood to the Battle of Auray (1364). The rest of Cuvelier's work is still unanalysed: Bertrand's exploits in Spain and all his years as connétable have not been done yet. Faucon tries to show a similarity between Cuvelier's poem and a Latin chronicle by the name Latin 5005. He states that it has been Cuvelier's source for Bertrand's youth until the Battle of Auray, but is all together not very convincing. We have to conclude that Faucon has done only a very small part of Cuvelier's work and left the main question asked by biographers
unanswered: can we use Cuvelier as a reliable source on Bertrand du Guesclin's life?31
Therefore, I aim to fill this ‘gap’ in the historiography by analyzing the reliability of one of the most important episodes in Bertrands life: the two military campaigns in Spain (1366-1367 and 1368-1369). Starting at verse 7.495 and ending at verse 18.296, these two military campaigns fill allmost 40% of Cuveliers chronicle – even though they form only four years in Bertrands life. One simply cannot judge Cuveliers reliability without analyzing this episode. Moreover, these are the four years that brought him fame and the constableship.
This paper will contain three chapters: first, I will analyze Cuvelier's approach to Bertrand's exploits and the style in which he choose to write this. What choices did the author make while writing this work? What do these choices say about his reliability and thus for the meaning his work can have for modern-day research on Bertrand du Guesclin. The second and third chapter will be about the question whether or not Cuvelier got his facts straight while describing the campaigns to Spain. These chapters will be split in the two campaigns: first that of 1366-1367 and then in the third chapter the campaign of 1368-1369. Unfortunately, there is a lot we cannot do. We will never now whether conversations actually took place, for instance. What we can check, are the numbers and places: the sizes of armies, the routes they took, the amounts that were paid, whether or not situations described are plausible. I will keep this paper centered around Bertrand du Guesclin. Therefore, I will not analyze the parts of Cuvelier's work in which Bertrand is not present. This distinction is made due to the overload of material and the distraction these parts may form from our key focus: Bertrand du Guesclin's life.
The sources I will use to analyze Cuvelier's reliability on Bertrand's exploits in Spain may require some introduction. In the first place, the letters that have been written by the main characters on
30 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 3, 269-310. 31 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 3, 269-310.
in these campaigns: most often Bertrand himself, don Henry of Trastámara or his ally Pere IV of Aragon (1319-1387). These letters tell us the view of these characters at the moment these events were happening, and are therefore a very good way to 'check' Cuvelier. Most of these letters have been published by Michael Jones, though not all.32 However, not all we would like to know can be found in correspondence of these main characters. Therefore I will also use the other chronicles written at the same time to see what they have to say on the subject and possibly to 'check' Cuvelier's version of events. The most important of these chronicles are the following: the chronicle written by don Pero Lopez d'Ayala (1332-1407), a Castilian statesman who switched sides in this conflict33; another by John Chandos, general of the Black Prince on the English side34; and finally, the Grandes Chroniques de France de Charles V, the Chronique de règnes de Jean II et
de Charles V, the first two volumes.35 These last two chronicles were written from 1370-1379 on order of the French king.
It is necessary to define a few more terms on this subject. As said before, in 1387 a chronicle in prose was written on Bertrand du Guesclin's life. Some authors think this prose-version was based on La vie valliant and see both works quite blindly as one and the same by Cuvelier.36 Others merely point out the differences between the two works and refer to them as two separate works, sometimes accepting some kind of relationship between the works, but a seemingly indirect one.37 This discussion lacks an systematic comparison, too. Neither side has been adequately proven, so I will use the terms ‘Cuveliers work’ or ‘La vie valliant’ as a reference only to the rhymed chronicle. I will do this since the rhymed chronicle was simply the first, so even if the prose-chronicle was based upon La vie valliant or was even written by the same person, it is this first version of the story of which we would like to know the reliability of. Therefore, this paper will only analyze the reliability of the rhymed chronicle on Bertrand du Guesclin's life.
32 J-G. du Coëtlosquet, 'Chartres inédits, tirées des archives de Pampelune et de Soria. Relatives à Du Guesclin et à ses compagnons d'armes', in: Revue historique de l'Ouest 6 (1890) 597-614; M. Jones (ed.) Letters, orders and musters of
Bertrand du Guesclin, 1357-1380 (Woodbridge 2004).
33 P. Lopez d'Ayala, Crónicas de los Reyes de Castillacon las enmiendas del Zurita y las correciones y notas añadidas por
D. Eug. de Llaguno Amirola 1-2 (Madrid 1779).
34 Chandos, Life of the Black Prince.
35 R. Delachenal, Les Grandes chroniques de France. Chronique des règnes de Jean II et Charles V 2-3 (Paris 1916 and 1920.)
36 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 3, 8; Vermijn, ´Chacun son Guesclin'.
Another problem concerns the name of our main character: Bertrand du Guesclin. This name can be written in many different ways and this has happened many times. The cause of this ‘problem’ lies with Bertrand himself, or at least with his secretary/secretaries. In his correspondence with the prince - and later king - Charles, we find several different spellings of his name: Bertrand,
Bertrande, Bertran, Bertrain, Bertrant, Beltran, Bertrand, or Bertram – de, du, dou or nothing at all – Claiquin, Cloyquin, Gleslcin, Glaisquin, Gueslin, Gloisquin, Glueslquin, Guerclin, Glesquin,
Glesqun, Geyclin, Glerquin, Gerclin, Glasquin, Gleisquin, Glaiquin, Gloaquin or Gueskin.38 And these
are only the various spellings in his own correspondence. In his contemporary John Chandos’s work for example, we find ‘Klaykyn’.39 Cuvelier himself also uses various ways of writing Bertrand's
name, he uses both 'Guesclin' and 'Glayequin'. He probably did so to keep the hexametre.40 I will use the spelling of Bertrand du Guesclin in this paper, since it is simply the most used spelling in the historiography, but you may find variations in any citations given.
This is said to have been Bertrand du Guesclin's signature. It may say 'Bertrain' or 'Bertram'. Copied from the Catalogue sommaire du Musée des Archives Nationales
précédé d'une notice historique sur le palais des archives par Jules Guiffrey (Paris
1893) page 55.
Finally, it must be mentioned that all numbers of verses named in this text come from Jean-Claude Faucon's edition of the several different manuscripts containing Cuvelier's work.41 Verse-numbers are unfortunately different in other editions, such as that of Ernest Charrière.42 This dissimilarity is due to the fact that not every manuscript contains the same text, sometimes pieces of text are missing or have been added later. These variations are common in medieval works, and is often done by copyists. Unfortunately, we do not know the original of Cuvelier's work, and thus we do not know which pieces of text were original or added later. However, Faucons work is based on every now known manuscript containing Cuvelier's work – in contrast to other editions – and therefore, his edition will present the basis of this paper.
38 For a complete list of the various spellings used in his own correspondence, see attachment. 39 See for example, Chandos, Life of the Black Prince, verses 1.660-1.661.
40 See for example Cuvelier, La chanson, verses 10.560 and 16.623. Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 2, 81 and 116. 41 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 1.
The remaining manuscripts containing Cuvelier's work can be found at: A : Paris, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal 3141 – early 15th century;
B1 : Montpellier, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Médecine H 250;
B2 : Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, NAF 993 – end 15th century/beginning 16th century; C : Le Mans, Bibliothèque municipale, 14 – 15th century;
D : Londres, British Library 20850 – between 1380 and 139243; E : Aix-en-Provence, Bibliothèque Méjanes 428 – February 15, 1441; F : Paris, Bibliothèque nationale Fr 850 – unknown44;
G : Notre-Dame, Indiana, USA, Library of the University of Notre-Dame 51 - May 28, 1464. The letters 'A, B, C..' have been given to the manuscripts by Faucon and are often used in the historiography, so I will use them as well.45 The two B's together would form one version, but unfortunately they have been separated.46 The relationship between all these versions has not been analyzed fully yet, but both Faucon and Yvonne Vermijn do describe relations between C, D, E and F – and B, E and F in their work on these manuscripts.47 Although both Faucon and Vermijn have written very readable pieces on these relationships, please note if you would like to read more on this subject, that Vermijn makes two consequent mistakes in her work. She consequently dates manuscript D at 1480, perhaps due to a typo, but this should be 1380-1392.48 Wrong
conclusions could be drawn by such mistakes. Secondly, she states that the matching paragraphs between B, E and F originate from manuscript B. This is utterly impossible, since manuscript B was dated at the end of the 15th /beginning of the 16th century and manuscript E at 1441.49 These parts cannot be originated from B if they appear a few decades earlier in E.
Some works also mention two manuscripts called 'X' and 'Y'. These two manuscripts are
mentioned in catalogs, but have disappeared and are considered lost. Since we have no knowledge
43 http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=8125&CollID=58&NStart=35, visited last on April 25, 2013.
44 According to Vermijn, older than G. Vermijn, ´Chacun son Guesclin', 14. 45 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 3, 311-348.
46 Ibidem, 313.
47 Ibidem, 311-348; Vermijn, ´Chacun son Guesclin', 14 and 33. 48 Vermijn, ´Chacun son Guesclin', 14.
of the contents of these manuscripts, they will not play any role in this paper.50
Chapter 1: style and approach
Bertrand du Guesclin is a very unusual hero in many ways. At first, because he was a Breton. A Breton military as national hero is strange, since Bretons and French were often considered different 'species'.51 Bretons were often put away as buffoons, boasters and cowards.52 A Breton example of the difference between Bretons and French can be found in the chronicle Jean le bon
duc de Bretagne makes:
Franczois estoint fricquez, mignoz, Et les Bretons foulx, lours et solts.53
Bertrand is not only a Breton and a French hero, which makes him unusual, but is also said to have been terribly ugly. He is often called ‘black’ as a reference to a devil’s face.54 English soldiers are said to flee simply because they saw him.55 At the siege of Rennes, in 1356, Cuvelier tells us a startled Englishman turned to another and said:
Regardés qu'il est fort, com les poings a carrez, Il est fort et poissant en moult noirs et harlez56
As the historian Robert Levine has said, Bertrand was not only very unattractive, but also
‘questionably civilized…’57 Some historians think Bertrand could not even read, unusual for a man of his stature.58 Yet this man was one of the most influential of his time.
Many historians think La vie valliant was commissioned by the king. They do so based purely on the fact that the king, being in times of war, could make use of an example of virtue, fortitude and loyalty.59 For example, Claude Tixier thinks so, citing Cuvelier:60
51 Levine, 'Myth and antimyth', 263. 52 Ibidem, 262.
53 E. Charrière, 'C'est le libvre du bon Jehan, duc de Bretagne', in: Cuvelier, Chronique de Bertrand du Guesclin par
Cuvelier, trouvère du XIVieme siècle, publiée pour la première fois par E. Charrière 2 (Paris 1839) 422-560, verses
2834-2835. The full comparison can be found at verses 2.792-2.846. 54 Levine, 'Myth and antimyth', 266.
55 See for example: Cuvelier, La chanson, verses 54-59 and 1.869-1.870. 56 Cuvelier, La chanson, verses 1.869-1.870.
57 Levine, 'Myth and antimyth', 264-265 and Tixier, Portrait littéraire, 17. 58 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 3, 201; Jones, Letters, xxxviii.
59 Chattaway, ‘The heroes', 33; Tixier, Portrait littéraire 178; Vermijn, ´Chacun son Guesclin', 3.
(verse 10) Qui tant fu redoubté jusques à l’yaue de Rin (verse 16-18) Ne resna oncques telz pour maintenir hutin, Que chroniques en sont, ne doubtez qu’adevin
A Saint-Denis en France, esciptes en latin
(verse 23-24) Afin c’on n’eüst pas les bons faiz oubliez Du vaillant connestable, qui tant fu redoubtez
(verse 37-42) Pius c'on ne vous diroit; et tant dust redoubtez Que chascuns se tenoit desconfiz et matez
Aussi tost qu’en assault estoit ses cris getez, Les annemis du roy ot moult vitupérez; Juifs et Sarrazins et puis Chrestientez Redoubtoient Bertran en toutes héritez
It is further believed that rhymed chronicles did indeed have a propagandist or educative function.61 If one follows this chain of reasoning, La vie valliant indeed could have been written commissioned by the king and would have been more as entertainment than as a historical piece. But as said before, Cuvelier does not give any hint for the identity of his commissioner. He does give the purpose of his work, but this does not help us much:
Afin c’on n’eüst pas les bons faiz oubliez
Du vaillant connestable, qui tant fu redoubtez62
To make sure people remember Bertrand's brave deeds, that seems logical when spending almost 23.000 verses on his life. Also, it makes sense to think the work was commissioned by at least high nobility, simply because it must have cost a lot of money to pay someone to write and compose this work. The longitude of this work is also what must have made it expensive to buy as copy, since one has to pay a copyist for the hours he spends copying all the verses. Furthermore, it is believed that the intended audience for rhymed chronicles ever was courtly.63 It is a pity we only know one identity of someone owning the book: Pierre de Craon (1345?-1409?), chancellor of
the Faucon edition. The verse-numbers in the Charrière edition are: 10, 15-17, 23-24, 38-43.
61 A.L.H. Hage, Sonder favele, sonder lieghen. Onderzoek naar vorm en functie van de Middelnederlandse rijmkroniek
als historiografisch genre (Forsten 1989) 187.
62 Cuvelier, La chanson, verses 25-26. 63 A.L.H. Hage, Sonder favele, 185.
Louis d'Anjou, the king's brother and a wealthy man indeed.64
Another person mentioned as part of the audience for la vie valliant is Jehannet d'Estouteville (no dates known). We do not know much about this Jehannet. It is said that his uncle was the new connétable after Bertrand's death, Robert or Moreau de Fiennes (1308-1385).65 We do know Jehannet d'Estouteville was an acquaintance of Bertrand, since Bertrand did a donation to him to thank him him for his services in 1380.66 Moreover, this Jehannet d'Estouteville was the
commissioner of the en prose-chronicle on Bertrand, which Vermijn has argued originates from the rhymed chronicle.67 Thus this name is also mentioned as audience for Cuvelier's work: an old acquaintance, of noble stock and probably wealthy as well.
Seeing as the audience were all noblemen, I think we should not exaggerate the purpose of the king or any other commissioner: the people inspired by this work to be as steadfast as Bertrand must have been very few. We should not see La vie valliant as a work of propaganda, but as a work written especially for one person – and then copied -, or maybe for a small group, but not as an advertisement in general to support France. This work was not meant to be sung on the streets, or as war propaganda, but as a piece of entertainment for a very small group of people.
A few things can be said about Cuvelier's methods writing this work. Unfortunately, Cuvelier's sources remain vague. Amongst historians there is some discussion on the sources used by Cuvelier to write his story. Roughly, it can be said that the discussion consists of two camps: one that argues La vie valliant was commissioned by the king and was based on official sources, and the other which argues that it was based on eye-witness stories, and therefore unreliable. Strangely enough, Coryn is the only historian in this debate who accepts eyewitness’ stories as a reliable source.68 Even more odd is the fact that no-one in this debate seems to think it is also possible to have both eyewitnesses and other literary works as sources for La vie valliant, or that there are other combinations possible: La vie valliant commissioned by the king, but based on eyewitness’ stories.
64 http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=8125&CollID=58&NStart=35, last accessed on April 25, 2013.
65 Vermijn, ´Chacun son Guesclin', 40.
66 P. le Verdier, Donation à Jehannet d'Estouteville par Bertrand du Guesclin (? 1880). 67 Vermijn, ´Chacun son Guesclin'.
I think Cuvelier appears to have used both other manuscripts as well as eyewitness's stories for his sources. Even though he does not elaborate any specifics on this persons or books, he does refer to them many times, in lines such as 'ce nous dit le escrips';69 'ce trouvons nous lisant';70 'ci con dit li escrips'; 'il est bien verité, si con dit li escrips'71; 'l'escripture l'apprent'72; 'si c'on treuve lisant'73; 'ce nous dites le ronmants'74; 'or nous dit la chançon et l'istoire vaillant'75; 'ce dit l’auttoritez'76 and 'se tesmoigne la voix'77. However, reliability was a different concept in the Middle Ages than it is nowadays, and the references made by Cuvelier do not mean his sources were in fact reliable. When analyzing Cuvelier's methods, we have to keep in mind that being a historian was not a profession in the Middle Ages. It required no specialist training, nor did it provide formal career pathways. Historians often claimed to be presenting the truth, but then, other forms of literature did as well, even fairy tales.78 'Truth' was a word much used by medieval chronicles, trying to convince their audience that their work was trustworthy and accurate.79 We saw in the introduction that Cuvelier does the same, referring constantly to other books and persons unnamed. Nevertheless, our author made a curious choice by writing his chronicle in verse, because, as Charles Given-Wilson states: ‘prose, like Latin, was generally portrayed as a more “serious” form than verse. When it came to history, moreover, the argument was taken a step further: not only was prose more serious than verse, it was also more “truthful”. Rhyme and metre were the problem here.’80 Or in the words of Robert Levine: 'the marriage of poetry and history never ran smoothly.'81
Isidore of Seville (560?-636), still a renowned scholar in the Middle Ages, even wrote that nothing
69 Cuvelier, La chanson, verses 566, 21.204, 22.761, 22.767, 24.326. 70 Ibidem, verses 10.618, 22.867.
71 Ibidem, verses 20.231 and 20.943. 72 Ibidem, verse 22.791.
73 Ibidem, verses 4.421 and 9.742.
74 Ibidem, verses 8.348, 8.436, 14.060, 16.753, 17.185, 172.04, 17.461, 18.795, 19.597, 21.011, 21.025. 75 Ibidem, verses 11.442 and 21.723.
76 Ibidem, verses 11.276, 11.289, 19.374, 20.123, 24.318.
77 Ibidem, verse 7.463.
78 C. Given-Wilson, Chronicles. The writing of history in medieval England (New York 2004) 1. 79 Given-Wilson, Chronicles, 1.
80 Ibidem, 143.
written in verse could possibly be true.82 More recently, at least for Cuvelier, was the French chronicler Jean le Bel (1290?-1370) who wrote in the 1350s that poets resorted to 'parolles controuvées' and that verse chronicles were 'tout faulx et plain de menchongnes'.83 Chris Given-Wilson describes how Jean le Bel was by no means the only one: in fact, the falsehood of verse writers became quite a topic amongst 13th and 14th century authors.84
On the Hundred Years War however, we have two works in verse: that of Cuvelier and that of John Chandos – of which at least John Chandos appears to be accurate85, and one chronicle in prose, that of Froissart (1337?-1405?) – that nobody takes seriously.86 We have to acknowledge then that Chandos and, more importantly for us, Cuvelier made a curious decision in writing in verse. Since his contemporaries may not have taken his story completely serious since it was written in verse, one might think the work was meant as a piece of entertainment, and not as historical.
Cuvelier's 'generation of chroniclers', as we might put it, was curious in more than one way, however. Chris Given-Wilson describes how chroniclers were usually mainly concerned with questions concerning chronology, which is, as Given-Wilson puts it, 'given that it was chronicles they wrote, is scarcely something to be wondered at.'87 However, the two examples Given-Wilson gives us of two chronicles who were not concerned with chronology, are Froissart and Chandos! According to Given-Wilson, they showed a much greater interest in qualitative description that in correct dating, and so does Cuvelier, in my opinion.88 Not to say that Cuvelier's dating is faulty. Cuvelier does not seem to spend so much attention to dates at all. Hardly any dates are
mentioned. Here again, Cuvelier – or at least Cuvelier's 'generation' – did something different than was commonly done, and we may again think of an entertainment-aspect here, since a lack of mentioning dates and years may make a story less recital-like and more enjoyable.
Then there is the shape of Cuvelier's work. Vermijn and Joseph d'Avenel, who once wrote a review 82 Isidore of Seville and W. M. Lindsay (ed.), Etymologies (Oxford 1911) 8.7.10: 'Officium autem poetae in
eo est ut ea quae vere gestae sunt, in alias species obliquis figurationibus cum decore aliquo conversa transducant. Unde et Lucanusi deo in numero poetarum non ponitur, quia videtur historias conposuisse, non poema.'
83 Jean le Bel, J. Viard and E. Déprez (eds.) Chronique de Jean le Bel I (Paris 1904-1905) 1-2. 84 Given-Wilson, Chronicles, 144.
85 Levine, 'Myth and antimyth', 259. 86 Ibidem, 259.
87 Given-Wilson, Chronicles, 113. 88 Ibidem, 113.
of the Charrière edition of Cuvelier's work, named La vie valliant a very late example of a literary genre called chanson de geste.89 Chansons de geste, 'songs of heroic deeds', were long poems – averaging 4.000 verses90 – to be recited by minstrels. They were especially popular from 1150 to 1250.91 D'Avenel is not too positive on this genre: they provided a worthy object for study, but could not 'give pleasure'. According to d'Avenel, the poems were too long and lacked any great, overarching conceptions. In addition, he states that composers of chansons de geste generally spent too much time insisting on their own veracity and mocking their own inventions.92 If a poem of 4.000 verses is 'too long', then Cuvelier's work of 22.790 would definitely be too much.
However, Cuvelier's work is not the only 'strange' work. Another example can be found in the fifteenth century dutch Voortzetting van de Brabantse Yeesten, which contains over 30.000 verses and was most probably written at a court as well.93 These works are exemptions however.
Charrière and Levine describe the nature of La vie valliant differently, as a mixed genre, neither biography nor general history, though participating in both genres.94 As Levine describes it: 'the poem seems carelessly shaped: facts are given without connections made between them, without logical or necessary order, but only according to the narrator's needs at the moment. Transitions from one subject to another are made arbitrarily, what an action means is not a primary
consideration, and most of the rules of narrative are sacrificed for immediate effect. The result, however, is a work that certainly does not conform exactly to the literal facts […] but which does give a remarkably vivid sense of the emotions of the time.'95 As Charrière and Levine point out, in this respect Cuvelier's work resembles that of already mentioned Froissart.96 Whichever the precise genre, Cuvelier again did something different here, and the question remains why.
'Dat virtus quod forma negat', 'honor gives what the form denies' is an expression often applied to
89 J. d'Avenel, 'Chronique de Bertrand du Guesclin par Cuvelier, trouvère du XIVe siècle, publiée pour la première fois par E. Charrière' (review), in: Journal des Savants (1844) 672-693; Vermijn, ´Chacun son Guesclin', 4.
90 U.T. Holmes, A History of Old French Literature from the Origins to 1300 (New York 1938) 66. 91 G. Hasenohr and M. Zink, Dictionnaire des lettres françaises: Le Moyen Age (Paris 1992) 242. 92 D'Avenel, 'Chronique', 672-693.
93 R. Stein, Politiek en historiografie. Het ontstaansmilieu van Brabantse kronieken in de eerste helft van de vijfteinde
eeuw (Leuven 1994) 143.
94 Cuvelier and Charrière, Chronique de Bertrand 1, iv-xxix. 95 Levine, 'Myth and antimyth', 261.
Bertrand du Guesclin, as a reference to his ugliness but also his honor and virtue.97 It can be applied to Cuvelier's work too: a work full of virtue, honor and loyalty, but in an ugly, odd form. The work may be seen as representing its main character.98
As stated before, Bertrand's exploits in Spain are due to a struggle between two brothers, both aiming to be king of Castile: don Pedro of Castile - the Cruel and don Henry of Trastámara - the Bastard. Bertrand is sent by the king of France to support Henry in removing his brother, who has been crowned king. Here follows a summary of Cuvelier's version of events, so that we can analyze his story in greater detail.
Cuvelier starts this episode of Bertrand's life by first explaining why don Pedro should be removed, and why Bertrand's and France's cause is a just one (verses 7.495-8.052). Don Pedro is said to have had a hand in the murder of his wife, Blanche de Bourbon (1339-1361). This murder was done on counsel and in execution by a Jew. Jews played a large part in this story, for don Pedro is said to consort with them and take their counsel all the time. As a good Catholic country, the 'Spanish' – here: the Castilians - turn to don Henry. To cap it all, one Jew seeks out don Henry and confesses to him, after receiving baptism, that don Pedro is not the legal king of Spain, but don Henry is – don Pedro turns out to be the bastard of the two, not don Henry. Worse even: don Pedro is actually the son of a Jew.
(verses 8.053-10.290) Henry then tries to find allies to oppose his brother and finds them in the king of Aragon and the king of France. The king of France was already working on a plan to lure the many bands of mercenaries – named the Grand Compagnies – out of France. First the idea of a crusade was proposed, but helping out don Henry seemed a better idea. Bertrand du Guesclin is appointed to lead this mission. First, the Grand Compagnies, now under Bertrand's leadership, travel to the Pope in Avignon due to the need to raise funds. The Pope is not very keen to part with his money and makes the citizens of Avignon pay in extra taxation. Bertrand gets furious when hearing this and eventually makes the Pope himself pay. When meeting up with don Henry in Aragon, the army travels to Burgos, the city where traditionally the Spanish kings are crowned. However, Burgos is prepared and in state of defense. Therefore, Bertrand's troops first attack Mangulon, Borja and Briviesca and take these three cities before Burgos surrenders. Henry is then crowned king at Burgos.
97 Dupuy, Bertrand du Guesclin.
(verses 10.291-11.915) After the coronation, they set out to remove don Pedro. They travel to Toledo and eventually the city surrenders to don Henry as well. Don Pedro, however, has fled in time to Cordoue. The same happens in Cordoue, and don Pedro flees to Séville. When Bertrand and don Henry follow him there, don Pedro decides to flee to Portugal in order to find allies. According to Cuvelier, the king of Portugal refuses to help him in order to stay neutral, but does point out the English to don Pedro. Don Pedro travels to Bordeaux and speaks to the Black Prince, Edward of Woodstock (1330-1376), and his general, John Chandos, who agree to come to his aid. Most of the mercenaries in the Grand Compagnies are English and own their loyalty to the Black Prince. They now have to leave Bertrand's army and fight for don Pedro instead.
(verses 11.916-13.182) The two armies eventually meet at Navarette, also called Najera. When the English appear to take victory, don Henry, encouraged by Bertrand, flees. Bertrand is taken
prisoner and put on ransom. After this victory, the English retreat to Bordeaux, taking Bertrand with them, confident that don Pedro now holds the Castilian throne.
(verses 13.183- 15.300) Meanwhile, the fled don Henry has to reassemble an army. Doing so, he travels to Aragon, Avignon, Bordeaux – where he visits Bertrand – and eventually back to Toledo, to lay another siege for the city, since Toledo has re-acknowledged don Pedro as its king. At the same time, Bertrand's ransom is determined and he is set free to go and collect the money. One of his travels leads him to Tarascon and Arles, two cities which he takes with the help of the duke of Anjou (1339-1383), the French king's brother. He repeatedly expresses his wish to be free, even though his time in Bordeaux cannot have been bad: a feast was held in his honor and according to Cuvelier, the Black Prince and his wife treated him with all kindness – the wife even offered him to pay a part of his ransom. But after traveling to Bretagne, Bertrand returns to Bordeaux and pays his ransom, and even a part of the ransom for some other prisoners.
(verses 15.301-16.515) Bertrand returns to Spain to his duchy of Molina. There he receives a letter from don Henry, who is still laying a siege before Toledo. Don Pedro is said to have made a deal with the 'Saracens', who are now fighting on his side. Bertrand joins forces with don Henry. After the defeat of his Saracen troops by Bertrand, don Pedro flees again, to three villages: Montesclaire, Montjardin and Port Sainte Marie. Don Henry constantly followed him - but it is not clear in
Cuvelier's version of events if Bertrand does as well. Don Pedro is greatly humiliated when he flees on board of a ship, and is recognized. The sailors want to throw him overboard, but a Jew stops them and 'buys' don Pedro from them. Don Pedro pays his ransom to this Jew, reassembles troops
at Belle-marine, and returns to Toledo – where don Henry and Bertrand are still laying siege. (verses 16.516-17.735) When at Toledo, don Pedro's troops – called the 'Saracens', so apparently the deal with them is still on – are again defeated. Don Pedro now flees to Seville, again
reassembles troops, and marches to Toledo. Bertrand advises don Henry to meet him, which they do halfway, at Montiel. In the battle that follows, don Pedro and don Henry have a one-on-one fight without any result, and both parties retreat eventually. Don Pedro retreats to the castle of Montiel, and don Henry lays siege before it. Don Pedro tries to escape one night, but is captured by Bègue de Villaines (no dates known), a comrade of Bertrand. When informed, don Henry arrives on the scene and tries to kill his brother. Bègue de Villaines defends his prisoner, but after don Henry buys don Pedro from him, the two brothers start to fight each other. Bertrand arrives and pulls the brothers apart. Don Henry orders his brother's execution, which is performed by an esquire. Don Pedro's head is sent to Seville.
(verses 17.736-18.427) Don Henry re-assumes the siege of Toledo. The city refuses to believe the murder of don Pedro and to re-acknowledge don Henry. During the siege, a message from the king of France arrives, asking Bertrand to return to France. Don Henry asks him to stay until Toledo has surrendered. After suffering famine, the city finally does submit to don Henry. A new message from France arrives, urging Bertrand to return and fight the English on French soil. On route to France Bertrand stops to lay siege before Soria, a city that has been added to his possessions in Spain but rebels against him. Marshal Arnoul d'Audrehem (1305?-1370) is sent to him from France to help him and to hasten his return to France. Thus does Cuvelier describes Bertrand's exploits in Spain. Secondary literature on the campaigns in Spain follows this version of events. The historians blindly accept either the chronicle of Cuvelier or that of d'Ayala – whose version of events is quite similar to Cuvelier's, of which we will see more later on. New material is not presented and they do pause not to analyze whether these chronicles actually are trustworthy.99 Can we take Cuvelier's version of events literally?
We saw the large role Jewish people played in Cuvelier's story, but whether or not Jews supported don Pedro, whether or not he listened to them, or aided them, or even was a Jew himself, we may never know for certain. What is clear to see however, is the fact that Cuvelier is an antisemitic, and thus we should not blindly accept his version of events. For Cuvelier it undoubtedly made sense:
99 Minois, La guerre de Cent Ans, naissance de deux nations (Sanit-Amand-Montrond 2008) 191-204; J. Sumption, Trial
presenting don Pedro as a Jew and thus as an anti-christian king, it made Bertrand's 'crusade' against him legal and justified. It is not my intention to belittle Cuvelier's hatred here, but some explanation can be given for this attitude.
From the 1380s onwards, the time in which La vie valliant was written, anti-Semitism flourished in France, as an aftermath of what happened earlier in the century: in 1348 the Black Death (the bubonic plague, which swept across Western Europe between 1348 and 1350) struck Western Europe and the Jews were blamed in many countries. Surviving Jews mostly fled to Eastern Europe, and in many places, once the plague was over, they were invited back to fulfill their former
functions, but on worse terms than before.100 One example of what happened in the 1380s is that of the provost of Paris, Hugues Aubriot (no dates known), was imprisoned for protecting Jewish infants against Parish citizens who were harassing their parents. Another example is a rapport by Philippe de Mézières (1327?-1405), general and writer, to the king, concluding that all Jews should be thrown out of France, in 1389. Cuvelier can be read as an echo or as a part of this antisemitic movement.101
It was the same, if not worse, in Spain: crude anti-Semitic propaganda, claiming that the Jews had murdered children or caused The Black Death circulated widely and especially during the war between don Pedro and don Henry. In this regard, it makes sense that Cuvelier reports the
supposed alignment between don Pedro and the Jews: he merely represented one side in this war propaganda. We can see his antisemitic remarks echoed in the later chronicle en prose.102 Also in Spain, the anti-Semitic movements lasted until the end of the century. In 1391, up to 4.000 Jews were reportedly massacred in Seville. Similar bloodshed followed in León, Burgos, Valencia, Barcelona, Jaca, Majorca and Perpignan.103
Several of the manuscripts miss some of the most violent parts against Jews, and therefore, these parts are not in my summary above. In verses 7.788-7.794 of some manuscripts – all except C, E, F - a call is made by an unknown knight to don Henry to kill all Jews in Spain. Also, at the battle of Briviensca, all Jews in the city are murdered by Bertrand and his troops – but not in manuscripts C, E and F.104 As said, we do not know which manuscript is the original or stands closest to the
100 W. Nicholls, Christian antisemitism. A history of hate (Londen 1993) 245-247. 101 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 3, 123.
102 Richou, La chronique, 109-110, 114-118.
103 S. Barton, A history of Spain (Hampshire 2009) 92-94. 104 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 3, 125.
original, so we do not know if this is Cuvelier's writing. Faucon does accept it as such; in his edition you will find these paragraphs at the appointed verses.
As said, the chronicle en prose does contain several of the massacres as well: first, all the Jews are murdered by Bertrand in a city which the author does not name, but lies between Magallón and Burgos105 - Borja?, then 'Ainsi fut prise Briviesca, ou se trouvaient de grandes richesses. Bertrand y fit tuer tous les Juifs et Sarrasins […]'106 and lastly, when Burgos surrenders to don Henry, ‘Les habitants [of Burgos] s’armèrent alors et tuèrent les Juifs et les Sarrasins.’107
Seeing the anti-semitic movement of the time and the war propaganda done in Spain, we should not read these parts in Cuvelier's story as facts. The same sort of precaution should be taken when we read about the Pope in Avignon. The church is a second object of satire for Cuvelier, as we see in the anecdote on how the Pope of Avignon does not want to part with his money. Cuvelier makes marshal d'Audrehem state Bertrand's demands to the cardinals:
Si direz au Saint Pere, dont li pouoir est grans, Qu'il nous vueille rassorre et nel soit refusans De l'absolucion avoir, dont il est bien poissans, Par la grace de Dieu, dont il est lieutenans,
Et de coupte et de peine, des maulx griefs et pesans Que nous avons touz faiz, puis que somnes enfans; Et avecques tout ce nous sera presentans,
Pour faire no voyage, bien II C mille frans.” Oy le dit li cardinaux, si li mua li sans;
Il leur a dit: “Seigneur, li nombres est trop grans, Vous serés bien assoubz, ja n'en soyez doubtans, Mais de l'argent payer ne suy pas respondans.”108
Bertrand demands absolution for all men and 200.000 francs from the Pope. This is Faucon's edition here, we will see later that the amounts differ in the manuscripts. In the cardinal's reply we
105 Richou, La chronique, 129-130. 106 Ibidem, 129-130.
107 Ibidem, 137.
see that the demand to give the mercenaries absolution, after all the horrible things they as men fighting for a living have undoubtedly done, is apparently no issue for the church. But the money – that poses more of a problem. Cuvelier goes on and tells us how the pope first tries to make the citizens of Avignon pay – but when Bertrand finds out, the Pope is forced to pay himself. The avarice and vanity of the Church are clear. Here, according to Faucon, Cuvelier can be read as an example of the sentiments of the age he is living in. Faucon refers to the debate between the Franciscan order and the Pope on poverty in the beginning of the fourteenth century.109 Also, under the former king Philip IV, the authority of the pope had been greatly reduced by repeatedly successfully denying the pope and especially when the papacy was moved to Avignon. An example of contemporary satire on the church can be found in Geoffrey Chaucer (1343?-1400), in his description of the friar traveling in the company he describes:
He hadde y-made many a fair mariage Of yonge wymen at his owne cost: Unto his ordre he was a noble post.110
The implication is that the friar had to marry many couples, since he had made the women
pregnant.111 Whether Bertrand blackmailed the Pope at Avignon or not, the satire on the greed of the Church is clear and should be read as such.
Then about women. Faucon is very surprised with Cuvelier for his lack of ridiculing women, for as Faucon says it: women were the 'objet traditionnel de la satire médiévale'.112 In fact, the only two women who are relevant in the section about Spain are the wives of don Pedro and of Edward of Woodstock and both are described most positively. Cuvelier does make three negative comments on women throughout his work – although not in the Spain section. According to Faucon, we should read these as 'standard' proverbs, but not as his attitude towards women:113 'Qui en femme se fie, il n'est mie soutis'114; 'En femme n'a de cens nain plus c'une brebis!'115; 'Qui trop sa femme
109 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 3, 121.
110 G. Chaucer and L.A Coote, The Canterbury tales (London 2002) 13. 111 Chaucer and L.A Coote, The Canterbury tales, 13.
112 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 3, 117. 113 Ibidem, 120.
114 Cuvelier, La chanson, verse 2.743. 115 Ibidem, verse 2.744.
croit, en la fin s'en repent'.116
Chapter 2: The first campaign
As we have seen, Cuvelier's version of the first campaign in Spain begins an explanation why don
Pedro should be removed from his throne: his consorting with Jews and his hand in the murder on Blanche de Bourbon. Don Henry finds allies in France (Bertrand leading the Grand Compagnies) and is supported by the king of Aragon. The Compagnies visit Avignon before they enter Spain. Since they cannot take Burgos, the cities of Mangulon, Borja and Briviesca are taken first. Burgos surrenders and don Henry is crowned king. They travel to Toledo, Cordoue and Séville. Don Pedro enlists the help of the English and the two armies meet at Najera, where Bertrand is taken captive and don Henry is forced to flee. Following Cuvelier's line in the version of events, we will now analyze the reliability of Cuvelier's facts.
Cuvelier describes to murder of Blanche and the consorting with Jews the reason for don Henry to oppose his half-brother. We have already seen that the alignment with Jews indeed was used in the anti-don Pedro war propaganda. That don Pedro ordered the murder of his wife is harder to prove. Pero Lopez d'Ayala, a Castilian statesman who switched sides in this conflict - first aligning himself with don Pedro and later with don Henry - confirms in his chronicle that don Pedro had his wife murdered: 'E el Rey mandó á un ome que Maestre Pablo de Perosa, Físico é Contador mayor del Rey, que diese hierbas á la Reyna con que muriese.'117 Whether or not it is true, we may never know. D'Ayala's version of events does prove this was a rumor at the time, and not an invention by Cuvelier. Whether Pablo de Perosa was a Jew, we know not.
Cuvelier describes how don Henry, looking for aid against don Pedro, finds support in the king of Aragon and the king of France. As we have seen, the king of France helps don Henry by sending troops – Bertrand leading the Compagnies. Cuvelier fails to mention that before this admission came, Bertrand traveled to Bordeaux, on advise by John Chandos, to ask the Black Prince to give permission to the English Compagnies to join his cause in Spain. The Black Prince gave this
authorization, probably urged by the Pope.118 We at least know the Pope sent a recommendation letter for Bertrand to Edward.119 Allowing Bertrand the lead the English mercenaries is often seen as quite a mistake on Edward's part, since he would choose side in this conflict a while later and his father did not approve.120 However, the Compagnies did turn over to his side due to their vow
117 D'Ayala, Crónicas 1, 328.
118 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 2, 69.
119 E. Prou, Étude sur les relatiions politiques du pape Urbain V avec les rois de France Jean II et Charles V (Paris 1888) 128 (letter no LIII).
never to raise weapons against the king of England.121
Then, according to Cuvelier, Bertrand and the Compagnies traveled to Avignon and demanded absolution and financial aid by the Pope: 200.000 francs, according to some manuscripts122, but according to others, 2.000 besans or francs.123 The chronicle of Jean II et Charles V indeed tells us Avignon was on Bertrand's route to Spain: 'Le 10 octobre 1365, Bertrand du Guesclin était à Auxerre; entre le 12 et le 16 novembre, à Villeneuve-d'Avignon; du 29 novembre au 3 décembre, à Montpellier.'124 Delachenal, in his history on Charles V, does the same: 'Les compagnies, qui
s'étaient acheminées vers Avignon par la rive droit de la Saône, puis par le rive droit du Rhône, durent arriver à Villeneuve, en face de la cité papale, au plus tard dans les premiers jours de novembre.'125 Neither of them refers to any financial aid or even contact between Bertrand and the Pope.
Michael Jones does state there was contact between Bertrand and the Pope, based on letters written by Pierre Scatisse (no dates known), treasurer of France since 1358.126 Apparently, Pierre Scatisse sent letters to the consuls and rectors at Montpellier to inform them of an agreement made between the Pope Urban V and Bertrand, and he sent a messenger to the Cardinals of Boulogne and Thérouanne at Avignon, with a letter Jones cites the following sentences which indicate indeed a conference between the Pope and Bertrand: 'super habendo colloquium cum Bertrando de Guerclino pro facto capcionis receptoris Nem' qui eundo Par' reddendo compota sue fuit depredatus per gentes societatem' and 'pro certis negociis Regis et pro facto dicti Bernardi qui regressus erat in Avinion' de voluntate domini Regis pro suo negocio prosequendo.'127
Unfortunately, these accounts by Scatisse are not where Michael Jones states we should find them.128
121 Cuvelier, La chanson, verses 11.817-11.848 and Chandos confirms at Chandos, La vie du prince noir, verses 1.964-2.013.
122 Cuvelier, La chanson, verse 8.553.
123 Cuvelier and Charrière, Chronique de Bertrand, verse 7.567; Cuvelier and Charrière, Chronique de Bertrand 1, 274 note 1.
124 R. Delachenal, Les Grandes Chroniques de Frans. Chronique des règnes de Jean II et Charles V 2 (Paris 1916) 12 note 1.
125 Delachenal, Histoire de Charles V 3, 294.
126 L. Ménard, Histoire civile, ecclésiastique et littéraire de la ville de Nîsmes avec les preuves 3 (Paris 1744-1758) 6. 127 Jones, Letters, 47 no 125-126.
Still, we have no proof of absolution or money given by the Pope. The only other chronicle that describes events similarly, is the chronicle en prose, who makes the Pope far more cooperative than Cuvelier does. When the Cardinal hears Bertrand's demands, and relates them to the Pope, the Pope replies in this chronicle with: '“C’est merveille que ces gens demandent absolution et argent.” Toutefois […] le Pape envoya l’argent exigé.'129 Bertrand and his Compagnies have been in Avignon, that much we can conclude. What happened there remains vague. Personally, I tend to think Bertrand would not put that much pressure on the Pope for financial aid, since only weeks before, the Pope helped him gain Edward's authorization for hiring the English mercenaries. He owed the Pope as least some consideration.
However, Cuvelier does seem to do another part of his story very well. The help coming from Aragon seems in Cuvelier's description to be in terms of friendship, diplomatic support and clear passage through the lands. This aid the kingdom of Aragon gives don Henry seems to be correct and very well documented. Several letters of correspondence between Henry or Bertrand and Pere IV, king of Aragon, remain. For example, we have letters to Bertrand, written on November 4 and early December, 1365, that the messenger who carried it was to be trusted.130 These letters do not prove anything but contact of course, but furthermore we have a letter from Pere IV to his
treasurer on February 13, 1366, to make arrangements for making various payments to Henry, and asks the treasurer to bring 4.000 florins. These 4.000 florins are the remainder of an amount of 10.000 florins, paid to Bertrand. The other 6.000 appear to have been paid earlier, in Barcelona: 'que li donam graciosement a Barchinona'.131 Even a week later, February 20, Bertrand is paid again by Pere IV, when Bertrand writes out a quittance for 500 florins d'or given to him by Pere IV.132 The purpose of these sums is unknown. The chronicle of Pere III of Catalonia, which is the chronicle of Pere IV, since Pere IV of Aragon was also king Pere III of Catalonia – does mention this amount, but not its purpose. Here is the translation by Mary Hillgarth:
After the companies had set out, We left Barcelona on the twenty-first day of January and went to Tarragona where We stayed some days. Mossèn Bertran returned to Us. To pay for certain things that he needed, We had to give him ten thousand golden florins
129 Richou, La chronique, 124-125.
130 Jones, Letters, 46, no 122 and 49, no 130. 131 Jones, Letters, 53, no 143.
above the one hundred thousand florins which We had already given him.133 According to Michael Jones, Pere IV also shared in the costs of hiring the Compagnies: refering to several different documents, in which an amount of 120.000 Aragonese florins is mentioned as Pere IV's share in the costs.134 This amount is unfortunately not mentioned in the chronicle of Pere IV (Pere III of Catalonia). It does state a wage was paid, and that Pere IV helps don Henry due to earlier skirmishes between him and don Pedro:
While We were in Barcelona, We bethought Ourselves that there had already been negotiations to bring companies from France, who, for a wage paid by Our court, should make war together with the people of Our kingdoms against the king of Castile, who had persecuted Us and desinherited Us of much land in the nine years during which the war had continued.135
Indeed, as Cuvelier stated, Pere IV also provided clear passage through his lands. He did so on November 17, 1365 through a mandate written by his chancellor that also ordered the
provisioning of the Compagnies.136 Conditions for this passage were made on October 30, 1365. The Compagnies were not to bother the city of Gerona, 'o de prelats [e] peronses ecclesiastiques, o de barons, o cavallers, o de homens de ciutat e viles […] e les fembres e infants […].' The city would sell provisions to the army for a reasonable price and some would be given. If the
Compagnies wished for other provisions, they would have to negotiate. If merchants were forced to sell by the Compagnies, in stead of by their government, they were to complain at the
government. Also, craftsmen were to be paid for their services; one example given is that if the Compagnies delivered flour, then the baker must make bread in exchange for a payment.137 The chronicle of Pere III describes this, next to an amount of 100.000 florins we do not find in
133 M. Hillgarth, Pere III of Catalonia (Pedro IV of Aragon): Chronicle 2 (Toronto 1980) 574.
134 Jones, Letters, no 121, note. This amount is also mentioned in Delachenal, Histoire de Charles V 3, 306. 135 Hillgarth, Pere III 2, 571.
136 Archivo de la corona de Aragón, reg. 1212, folio 4-5, 'Mandement de Pierre le Cérémonieux, roi d'Aragon, à frère Guillaume de Guimerâ, des Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem, commandeur des maisons de Tortosa et de
Grañena, pour l'approvisionnement des lieux où doivent passer les Compagnies.' Printed in Delachenal, Chronique 3, 101-103.
137 Archivo de la corona de Aragón, reg. 1386, folio 163-165, 'Dispositions édictées par Pierre IV le Cérémonieux, roi d'Aragon, pour l'entrée des Grandes Compagnies en Espagne et leur passage à travers la Catalogne'. Printed in Delachenal, Chronique 3, 103-108.
Cuvelier or in any of the correspondence:
We also gave them one hundred thousand golden florins, besides pillage they would find in Our kingdoms and lands, except that they should not fight against any places or fortresses in Our kingdom.138
So under the facade of help, it is clear that Pere IV had another motive as well: to keep his own territory safe from this new army. In a letter from Pere IV to an esquire of Bertrand, on February 25, 1366, he payd him '3000 s' in order that the Compagnies would not cause any damage to the city of Oscen (Jones thinks this must be (in) Huesca)139: 'a fin quel dito scudero vos defendres que las companyas franceys dany alguno no vos friziessen...'140. The 's' may stand here for sueldos – it has been said an Aragonese florin was worth 12 or 14 sueldos.141 We can see here that the
Compagnies are paid off to ensure that they would behave themselves. We can compare this with the early deal around Gerona, although we do not find any conditions on paper here: the army got money or provisions to avoid trouble. We do not know if these pay-offs happened more often, it could be we have to see the other payments to Bertrand in the same light.
Thus, we think we can safely see Cuvelier is correct here that Pere IV of Aragon helped don Henry and the Compagnies, though his information is far less extensive than can be found nowadays. Due to the fact that some of the correspondence of Bertrand and other main characters has remained, we can vaguely reconstruct the routes the two campaigns in Spain must have had, since most letters are signed with a date and place. With these dates and places, we can 'check' whether Cuvelier gives a reliable images of this campaigns. For the first campaign, Cuvelier mentions the cities of Magallón ('Mangulon', verses 8.975-8.976), Borja ('Bourges', verses 9.085-9.090), Briviesca ('Brenesque', verses 9.143-9.342), Burgos ('Burs', verses 9.560-9.837), Toledo (verses 10.122-10.227), Cordoue ('Cordonne', verse 10.363), Seville ('Cebille', verses 10.655-107.15) and Najera (verses 12.380-12.623) – also see the map on page 36.
As you can see, Cuvelier calls Borja 'Bourges', and Burgos 'Burs'. Faucon thinks Cuvelier mixed the two cities up in verse 9.749, when Bertrand is given the duchy of Molina and the city of Borja
138 Hillgarth, Pere III 2, 572. 139 Jones, Letters, 55, no 146. 140 Jones, Letters, 55, no 146.
141 P. Spufford, Money and its use in medieval Europe (Cambridge 1989) 400. http://www.tesorillo.com/otras/medievales.htm, visited April 8, 2013.
(Bourges), but Cuvelier is not mistaken here. Faucon himself mixes them up, as he thinks Bourges is Burgos. It is not, don Henry is crowned king in 'Burs', which is to say Burgos, where all Spanish kings were crowned at the time. Borja or Bourges is given to Bertrand, as a reward. It would be illogical to think that an important city for coronation was given away to a foreigner, as even Faucon himself states.142
First, we have a letter Pere IV confirming the amount of 3000 sueldos which is given to Bertrand so that the Compagnies would not harm the city of Huesca, which we have seen above. This letter was signed at Zaragoza, on February 25, 1366.143 Cuvelier does not mention this city.We do not have any correspondence telling of the sieges at Magallón, Borja and Briviesca. However, according to Felix Sagredo Fernandez, who wrote a history of the town Briviensca mainly based on its
archive, Bertrand indeed did advance on Briviensca, but turned to Burgos when he found
Briviensca in state of defense. Fernandez further states that before Bertrand turned to Briviensca, he took the cities of Magallón, Borja and Tarazona first. On the second day of February, don Henry and Bertrand turned to Callahorra. Bertrand would have taken Burgos on the first of April:
Hacia 1366 vuelve de nuevo a la carga el Infante Don Enrique, esta vez ayudado por las compañías de Du Guesclin y Calveley. Con su apoyo se apodera de nuevo de las
ciudades de Magallón, Borja y Tarazona. En los últimos días de febrero avanza hacia Calahorra, y el 16 de marzo se hace proclamar rey, instigado por los caballeros
mercernarios. El panorama no es muy halagüeño para Don Pedro, quien se retira hacia el Sur. Du Guesclin avanza hacia Briviensca y la toma sin resistencia, dirigiéndose luego directamente sobre Burgos, qiue alcanza a primeros de abril del mismo año.144
The dates and sieges seem to match with Cuvelier's version, except for the fact that Briviesca was not taken, and that the Jews there were not – well, at least not by Bertrand or by his company – slaughtered. The copyists – if copyists - of C, E, F were right not to include this episode. The strange thing is that d'Ayala also describes Briviesca as taken, whereas you would expect that he, as one of the noblemen in the heart of the conflict, would have more reliable information:
142 Cuvelier and Faucon, La chanson 2, 78; Cuvelier, La chanson, verses 9.749 and 9.560-9.837. Faucon makes another mistake here by referring to verse 8.936, whereas in this own edition, the duchy of Molina in given to Bertrand in verse 9.749, not in verse 8.936.
143 Jones, Letters, 55 no 146.
144 F.S. Fernandez, Briviensca antigua y medieval. De Virovesca a Briviensca: datos para una historia de la Bureba (Madrid 1979) 187, citing Archivo Municipal de Briviensca, doc 14 here.
