truth I cared not against whom. I did indeed make it under shadow of the King of England's name in preference to any other, but I have always looked for gain and conquest wherever they may be had, and such should ever be the conduct of adventurous companions who are for deeds of arms and to advance themselves.'

One of the most striking illustrations of the perfect ease and satisfaction with which Froissart regarded the existing state of things is to be found in his account of the various outbreaks which took place in his time on the part of the peasantry against the nobility. He describes the Jacquerie simply as a modern writer would describe any ordinary crime, without a word of explanation even of the causes of the revolt, or of pity for the fearful (though not undeserved) punishment which it met with. His account of Wat Tyler's insurrection goes rather more into detail, and is curious on account of its callousness, and the utter ignorance which it shows of principles which, in our days, are universally familiar. I have italicised the contradictions in the following extract:

While these conferences were going forward, there happened in England great commotions among the lower ranks of the people, by which England was near ruined without resource. Never was a country in such jeopardy as this was at that period, and all through the too great comfort of the commonalty. Rebellion was stirred up as it was formerly done in France by the Jacques Bons-hommes, who did much evil,

and sore troubled the kingdom of France.

It is marvellous from what a trifle this pesti lence raged in England. In order that it may serve as an example to mankind, I will speak of all that was done, from the information I had at the time on the subject.

It is customary in England, as well as in several other countries, for the nobility to have great privileges over the commonalty, whom they keep in bondage; that is to say, they are bound by law and custom to plough the lands of gentlemen, to harvest the grain, to carry it home to the barn, to thrash and winnow it; they are also

bound to harvest the hay and carry i home. All these services they are obliged to perform for their lords, and many more i England than in other countries. The pre lates and gentlemen are thus served. II the counties of Kent, Sussex, Essex, and Bedford, these services are more oppressive than in all the rest of the kingdom. The rise, saying that they were too severely evil disposed in these districts began to oppressed: that at the beginning of the world there were no slaves, and that no one ought to be treated as such, unless he had committed treason against his lord, as done no such thing, for they were neither Lucifer had against God; but they had angels nor spirits, but men formed after the same likeness with their lords, who treated them as beasts. This they would free, and if they laboured or did any other not longer bear, but had determined to be works for their lords, they would be paid for it. A crazy priest in the county of Kent, called John Ball, who, for his absurd preaching, had been thrice confined in the prison of the Archbishop of Canterbury. was greatly instrumental in inflaming them with those ideas.

After describing Ball's sermons at some length, he concludes with the following observation: 'In order that gentlemen and others may take example and correct wicked rebels, I will most amply detail how this business was conducted.' Farther on he tells, without the smallest mark of disapprobation, the manner in which Richard II. got out of his difficul ties for the moment, by promising the insurgents general enfranchisement, and giving them letters under his seal granting it, and how he afterwards got the letters back and tore them up, and hanged or beheaded upwards of 1,500 persons in various parts of the country for having obtained them.

Such being the general style and tone of Froissart's work, it is natu ral to ask what can be collected from his book as to his opinions and those of his age on great subjects. Froissart was a priest, and for this, as for other reasons, it is natural to look first at the light which his book throws on the religious condition of the age which he de

scribed. The result is curious. Every page of Joinville is stamped deep with the impress of religion. Comines never misses an opportunity of dwelling, after his manner, on the providential government of the world; but M. Michelet's strange remark that the word 'God' is not to be found in Shakespeare would be far less unjust if applied to Froissart. It is not so much the word as the thought that is wanting, and that not only in Froissart himself, but in the persons about whom he writes. His book suggests that religion and morals too were in his time under an almost total eclipse, and that the only substitute for them, such as it was, which his writings show to have existed, was polished manners as between gentlemen. The only observations of what may be called a pious character in the whole book occurs in the description of the sudden attack of madness which came upon Charles VI. when on his march against Brittany. 'It was manifestly the work of God, whose punishments are severe, to make his creatures tremble.' Here follows a reference to Nebuchadnezzar, and then Froissart observes: 'To speak truly, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, three in name, but one in substance, was, is, and ever will be of as sufficient power to declare his works as from the beginning, and one ought not, therefore, to be surprised at whatever wonderful things happen.' There is a little but not very much more trace of ecclesiastical as distinguished from religious feeling in Froissart. He refers several times to the great schism between the Urbanists and the Clementists, which lasted through nearly the whole of the period of which he writes. His tone upon the subject is that of a sensible man of the world who hated to see his profession lowered in influence and public estimation by the disputes of its members.

The great proprietors of land, who were at the first such noble benefactors to the Church, now make joke of it, even at the time I was writing and chronicling this history, in the year of grace 1390; at which the commonalty were much surprised, and wondered why such great lords as the Kings of France and Germany, and the other princes of Christendon, did not provide a remedy for it. But, to satisfy the people and excuse the great barons, I may say, that as there cannot be a yolk of an egg without its white, nor a white without the yolk, so neither the clergy nor the lords can exist independently of each other; for the lords, not being ruled by the clergy, would degenerate into beasts.

The secret contempt of the priest for the noble which peeps out at the end of this passage is all the more remarkable because it is so seldom and so shortly expressed. The tacit assumption involved in the last sentence, that the clergy could not possibly dispense with the support of the nobility, that the Church was essentially an aristocratic institution, is also notable. These observations are followed by an account of a certain Friar John de la RocheTaillade, who enforced the doctrine that it was necessary for the clergy to bear their honours meekly by a parable showing how a bird, a prodigiously handsome bird,' was born without feathers, and was on account of his beauty supplied with feathers by others. Becoming proud, those who had lent their feathers reclaimed them, whereupon the bird begged for mercy, and promised henceforward never to risk by pride or presumption the loss of his feathers.' His friends agreed to his conditions. 'We will gladly see thee fly among us so long as thou shalt bear thyself meekly, for so it becometh thee; but if ever thou shalt act arrogantly we will pluck thee bare, and leave thee in the naked state we found thee.'

The fortunes of John de la RocheTaillade are worth notice. He gave the obvious interpretation of the parable, and the cardinals 'would willingly have put him to

death, but they could not find any just cause for it. They suffered him to live, but confined him a close prisoner; for he proposed such deep questions, and examined so closely the Scriptures, that he might perhaps, had he been at liberty, have led the world astray.' The view which is disclosed by this story of the relation between the Church and the nobles, and of the necessity of the feathers to the prodigiously handsome bird, is delightfully simple and natural. So too is the fall of poor John de la RocheTaillade. Elsewhere Froissart describes him as a prophet who made many books full of much science and learning,' and foretold in them many events which he never 'could have foretold as a prophet, but by means of the ancient Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.' Froissart obviously regarded him as on the whole a dangerous character.

Small as is the part allotted to religious feeling or reflection in Froissart's pages, there is a fair share of superstition and plenty of ignorance. Several instances of this occur in the account which he gives of the siege, by the French and English jointly during one of their truces, of the town of Africa, a fortress in Morocco. The Saracens sent to ask the Christians why they attacked people who had never offended them. Wherenpon 'twelve of the greatest barons in the army assembled in the Duke of Bourbon's tent, and the messenger and interpreter being called in, the last was ordered to tell him from the lords present "that in consequence of their ancestors having crucified and put to death the Son of God called Jesus Christ, a true prophet, without any cause or just reason, they were come to retaliate on them for this infamous and unjust judgment. Secondly, they were unbaptised and infidels in the faith to the Holy Virgin, mother of Jesus Christ, and had no creed of their own. For

6

these and other causes they held the Saracens and their whole sect as enemies, and were come to revenge the injuries they had done to their God and faith." Upon this, the Saracens laughed heartily, and said they made assertions without proof, for it was the Jews who had crucified Jesus Christ, and not them.' Various miracles occurred at the siege. The Genoese cross-bowmen had a dog which belonged to no one in particular, and always barked when the Saracens came out, whence he was called the Dog of Our Lady. Through the grace of God and the Virgin Mary a remedy was found for a swarm of flies in the shape of a thunder-storm. The Virgin herself and a company of ladies dressed in white appeared to and frightened the Saracens.

6

Probably this was because the business was in the nature of a crusade, but there are some though not many miracles reported on other occasions. The oddest story by far in the whole book relates to a rapping spirit, who appears to have behaved himself in a castle in the Pyrenees in the fourteenth century in the very same way in which Wesley's ghost behaved at Epworth in the eighteenth, and the ghosts of ourown time in Europe and America. He was, however, a very superior sort of ghost, as, unlike his successors, he had much to say for himself, and anticipated the electric telegraph. The story is this.

Raymond of Corusse, a Baron of Foix, had a suit about tithes against a priest of Catalonia, to whom he refused to do justice, though the priest got judgment. The priest said he would send a champion whom the Baron should fear, and took his departure. Three months after, while the Baron and his wife were in bed, there came invisible messengers, who made such a noise, knocking about everything they met with in the castle, as if they were determined to destroy all

within it, and they gave such loud raps at the door of the chamber of the knight that the lady was exceedingly frightened.' On the following night the noises and rioting were renewed, but much louder than before, and there were such blows struck against the door and windows of the chamber of the knight that it seemed they would break them down.' The knight got up and asked who was there. The ghost (who was able, it seems, to talk) said his name was Orthon, and he was sent by the priest. The knight said, 'Serving a clerk will not be of much advantage to thee. I beg thou wilt, therefore, leave him and serve me.' Orthon, 'who had taken a liking to the knight,' said, 'Do you wish it?' 'Yes,' replied the knight, but no harm must be done to anyone within these walls.' 'Oh, no,' answered Orthon, 'I have no power to do ill to anyone, only to awaken thee and disturb thy rest or that of other persons.' At last it was settled that Orthon was to serve the knight, and he accordingly called frequently and told him news from all parts of the world for five years. Two or three times every week he visited the knight and told him all the news of the countries he had frequented, which the knight wrote immediately to the Count of Foix, who was much delighted therewith, as there is not a lord in the world more eager for news from foreign parts than he is.' Being prepared to appear to the knight, Orthon did so; first in the shape of two straws, and then in the shape of a sharp-pointed, lean sow.' Unluckily, the knight set his dogs at the sow, and so affronted Orthon, and broke off the connection. The story is introduced to explain the alleged fact that the Count of Foix knew of a battle in Portugal, in which the French and Béarnese were defeated with great loss to the Portuguese and English, the day after it was fought,

VOL.VII.-NO. XLIII. NEW SERIES.

though the news did not arrive by the ordinary route for ten days. The story was told with much mystery: 'He drew me aside to a corner of the vault of the chapel of Orthès, and thus began his tale.'

One of the most interesting of the matters to be extracted from Froissart is his estimate of the character of the different nations which he has occasion to describe, and his accounts of their manners and customs. His observations on national character are mere passing remarks. The notion of set dissertations on such a topic had not occurred to him. Indeed, the limits of race and nation were then but ill-fixed. Froissart constantly speaks of people becoming Englishmen and Frenchmen in the sense of taking the side of the English or the French. He constantly speaks of Gascons as Englishmen, and, on the other hand, remarks that in England he, though a Hainaulter, was called a Frenchman; 'for all who speak the langue d'Oil are by the English considered as Frenchmen, whatever country. they are from.' He makes hardly any general observations on the French character, but a good many on that of the English. It is pleasant, even at this distance of time, to read his observations on the warlike qualities of our ancestors (who, however, continually met their match). For instance, in speaking of the battle of Otterbourne, he says, 'Of all the battles that have been described in this history, great and small, this was the best fought and the most severe; for there was not a man, knight or squire, who did not acquit himself gallantly hand to hand with his enemy. It resembled somewhat that of Cockerel, which was as long and hardily disputed." 'The English and Scotch are excellent men-at-arms, and whenever they meet in battle they do not spare each other: nor is there any

E

check to their courage as long as their weapons endure.'

So in speaking of the army which the Black Prince took into Spain, he says: 'The Prince had with him the flower of chivalry, and there were under him the most renowned combatants in the whole world.' Otherwise, however, he had not a very good opinion of the English. He says: Consider how serious a thing it is when the people rise up in arms against their Sovereign, more especially such a people as the English. In such a case there is no remedy; for they are the worst people in the world, the most obstinate and presumptuous, and of all England the Londoners are the leaders, for, to say the truth, they are very powerful in men and in wealth. In the city and neighbourhood there are 24,000 men completely armed from head to foot, and full 30,000 archers. This is a great force, and they are bold and courageous, and the more blood is spilt the greater is their courage.' He speaks, too, of their 'hot and impatient temper,' and describes their behaviour to the Gascons very unfavourably. 'I was at Bordeaux when the Prince of Wales marched to Spain, and witnessed the great haughtiness of the English, who are affable to no other nation than their own, nor could any of the gentlemen of Gascony or Aquitaine, though they had ruined themselves by their wars, obtain office or employment in their own country, for the English said they were neither on a level with them nor worthy of their society, which made the Gascons very indignant.' He says, indeed, in describing his visit to England, that the English are courteous to strangers,' but it is easy to recognise in their remarks the stubborn courage and self-reliance of which

6

we have had such cause to regret. A characteristic little touch is introduced in the description of the feelings with which the English received the news of the French victory over the Flemings at Rosebecque. We can, as it were, hear the voice of John Bull growling to us his descendants over an interval of 500 years. When the English knights conversed together on the subject, they said, "Holy Mary! how proud will the French be now for the heap of peasants they have slain! I wish to God, Philip van Artevelde had had two thousand of our lances and 6,000 archers: not one Frenchman would have escaped death or imprisonment. By God they shall not long keep this honour," &c. &c. Might not this have been said in any club in London, à propos of the news of Magenta or Solferino?

are

The Scotch come off even worse than the English at Froissart's hands. 'The Scots,' he says, a wretched race, and pay not any regard to truces or respites, but as it suits their own convenience.' Elsewhere he observes that a horse was missed, for a Scotsman (they are all thieves) had stolen him.' There are two passages which give a very clear notion of the state of Scotland, but they are too long to quote. One is an elaborate account of the Scotch manner of making war, the other an account of the quarrels between the Scotch and the French, who came to help them against the English, and were all but starved to death by their allies.

Froissart was never himself in Ireland; but one of the best passages in the book is the account which he gives as the relation of a squire called Henry Castide of their manners. Castide had been taken prisoner by an Irish chief and lived with him seven years, during which time he married his daughter. From his connection with Ireland he was