THE LANDING OF THE LADY DE COUCY AT BOULOGNE ON HER RETURN FROM ENGLAND IN THE YEAR 1399.
Almost immediately after the deposition of Richard II., in 1399, the lady of Coucy, who had been in attendance upon his queen Isabella, daughter of Charles VI., returned to France, conveying the first tidings of the events which had just occurred. Rumours had already reached that country through some merchants of Bruges, but the whole truth was not known at Paris till the arrival of this lady. The grief of the king, when he heard of the misfortunes which had overtaken his son-in-law, was so great that it caused a return of his frenzy, and his uncles again resumed the government of the kingdom. The citizens of Bourdeaux, where Richard was born, were much attached to him, and, on hearing of his deposition and imprisonment were greatly excited, as were the people of all the surrounding country; for he had always been popular in that province. These circumstances gave the French great hopes that they might detach them from their allegiance to the English, and they carried on many intrigues and secret negotiations with that view; but after the first effervescence of feeling was over, the people of the Bordelais took a calm view of the question, and decided, as Froissart quaintly narrates it, that as France was at that time oppressed with heavy taxes, it would be better for them to remain true to the English, who left them frank and free; saying, “If the Londoners have deposed king Richard and crowned king Henry, what is it to us? &c. &c.—we have more commerce with the English than the French, in wines, wool, and cloth. Let us therefore be cautious how we listen to propositions which we may hereafter repent[14].”
It appears from this passage that actually more of the Bourdeaux wines were[Pg 122] consumed in England than in France; so that an immense commerce of exchange between that district and England, equally advantageous to both, must then have flourished, which the interference of modern tariffs has, comparatively speaking, utterly destroyed.
The picture represents the disembarkation of the lady of Coucy at Boulogne-sur-Mer; and might, with slight alteration in the dresses of the principal personages, represent a party landing at Boulogne at the present time; for on the Continent, where liberal institutions and machinery have been more recent introductions than with us, habits and customs are far less changed. The form of the wheelbarrow is precisely that of the French wheelbarrows of the present day, and the blue frock of the man is still frequently worn by the barrow-men; the other porter too is carrying a trunk by means of a twisted rope, just in the manner which has descended to his successors of the present day on the quais of Calais and Boulogne, whilst the very form of the trunks is still orthodox with the manufacturers of such articles in the provincial towns of the Continent.
The respective characters of the party landing are most admirably delineated; the courtly step of the two male attendants, as they advance in earnest conversation, is cleverly contrasted with the boorish postures of the sailors and porters; and the serious propriety of the manner and expression of the lady, bearer of such evil tidings, is equally well discriminated from the pert nonchalance of the waiting-maid with her toilet-box and bundle. It is, on these accounts, one of the most interesting miniatures in the volume, though neither so richly coloured or highly finished as many others.[Pg 123]
THE DEATH OF POPE CLEMENT OF AVIGNON.
This picture represents the death of Robert of Geneva, who died in the year 1394, at the papal palace of Avignon, with the title of Pope Clement VI., though, whether rightfully enjoyed or not, Froissart says he shall not discuss, as a matter not within his province. The heading of the chapter, “De la mort du pape Clement d’Avignon et de l’election du pape Benedic I., Chappitre 59,” is in red ink in the MS. The commencement of the chapter is, “En ce temps au mois de Septembre trespassa de ce siècle en son pallais d’Avignon Robert de Geneve, cy dessu nommé en nostre histoire[15].[Pg 127][Pg 126]”
THE KING OF FRANCE RECEIVING THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE DEFEAT IN TURKEY.
The unfortunate result of the King of Hungary’s campaign in Turkey, as well as the ransom of the prisoners, has been mentioned in the description of Plates XIV. and XIX. The present miniature represents the reception of the news at the French court. Sir James de Helly, who was one of the prisoners, had formerly served in Turkey under the sultan Amurat, so that he knew a little of the Turkish language, and was on that account selected by Bajazet to proceed to France on parole, in order to arrange the ransom of the other prisoners. Sir James arrived in Paris on the evening of Christmas-day, in the year 1396, and immediately waited on the king at the Hotel St. Pol, as represented in the miniature, in the same dress he had rode in, booted and spurred. Froissart tells us, that “when the intelligence brought by Sir James de Helly was made public, all who had lost husband, brother, father, or child, were in the utmost consternation, as may easily be imagined. The high nobility of France, such as the Duchess of Burgundy and the lady Margaret of Hainault, were greatly afflicted on account of their son and husband, the Count de Nevers, for he was greatly beloved by them. The Countess of Eu lamented her lord, the constable, as did the Countess de la Marche. The ladies of Coucy, Bar, and Sully, in like manner bewailed the melancholy situation of their lords. They were fortunate in having only their lords’ captivity to lament, and were somewhat comforted thereat. But the relatives and friends of those who had been massacred were inconsolable, and the grief of France lasted a long time.” For many highly interesting particulars, see Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. ii., pp. 629, 630, and 631.[Pg 131][Pg 130]
THE DUKE OF GLOUCESTER AND SIR JOHN LACKINGAY.
Froissart tells us that the Duke of Gloucester plotted the destruction of the king, his nephew; and, in his evidently implicit faith in the divine right of kings, appears much shocked at the enormity of the duke’s delinquency; nevertheless, in the so-called treasonable conversations which he makes him hold with his confidant, Sir John Lackingay, the duke states nothing but the reasonable causes of complaint which so glaringly existed. He says, “If the King of England had a good head, &c., &c., he would take some pains to recover the inheritance the French have so shamefully stolen from him, &c., &c.; but things are not so: we have an unwarlike king, who is indifferent to arms,” &c., &c. And again: “The king raises heavy taxes on our merchants, who are greatly discontented, squanders the money no one knows how, and thus the country is impoverished[16];” with much more, all of which was too true. But our chronicler relates also, with less authority, that the duke actually proposed to his nephew, the Earl of March, to depose the king, and, with the help of the discontented Londoners, seize upon the government.
In justice, however, to Froissart, we must remark that he expresses the greatest indignation and horror at the treacherous arrest and cruel murder of the duke, consequent upon these reports.
The illumination is carefully drawn, especially the mantle of the duke, which has a picturesque and graceful effect.[Pg 135][Pg 134]
THE DEATH OF ANNE OF BOHEMIA, &c. &c.
Richard II., soon after his accession, married Anne of Bohemia, sister of Wenceslaus, King of Bohemia and Emperor of Germany, with whom he lived happily till the year 1394, when about to start on his Irish expedition; at which period, Froissart tells us, “the Lady Anne, Queen of England, fell sick, to the great distress of the King and her household. Her disorder increased so rapidly, that she departed this life on the feast of Whitsuntide, in the year of grace 1394.”[17] It appears that the King felt her loss very severely, even venting his anguish upon the palace at Sheen, where she died, which he caused to be razed to the ground.
The funeral service was not performed at the time, as the King ordered extraordinary preparations to be made for the occasion, insomuch that, as our author says, “nothing was over seen like to it before, not even at the burial of the good Queen Philippa, nor of any other. The King would have it so, because she was the daughter of the King of Bohemia,[18] Emperor of Rome and of Germany. He was inconsolable for her loss, as they mutually loved each other, having been married young.” He farther states, that “there was no talk of the King’s marrying again, for he would not hear of it,” &c. &c. Nevertheless, not very long afterwards, he married Isabella, daughter of Charles VI., of France.
This Illumination has been selected principally for the accurate manner in which the ordinary fittings of a bed-room of the period are delineated, particularly the carpet of stamped leather, then in general use in the rooms of the sick.[Pg 139][Pg 138]
THE DEATH OF EVAN DE FOIX.
The well-known catastrophe exhibited in this picture occurred in the year 1393,[19] at the Hotel St. Pol, in Paris. There was a grand entertainment on the occasion of the marriage of one of the ladies of the Queen. A certain Hugonin de Guisay proposed to the King and four others, himself making the sixth, to disguise themselves as wild men, in dresses covered all over with flax to imitate hair.[20] They entered the apartment, five chained together, dancing, the King leading them, to the great astonishment and amusement of the company, who could not guess who they were, so complete was the disguise. The Duchess of Berri, who, although the King’s aunt, was yet the youngest lady present, beckoned the King to her, and put many joking questions to him, with the view of ascertaining his name, refusing to let him leave her till he had avowed it. At this moment, the Duke of Orleans, wishing to discover one of the others, placed a torch so near that the flax caught fire, and in a moment all five were enveloped in flames, breaking their chains and uttering fearful cries of agony. The Duchess de Berri, seeing the disaster, threw her dress (“goune,” as Froissart calls it) over the King, who, crouching beneath it, was saved. The son of the Lord of Nantouillet, when his dress took fire, recollected a tub of water close at hand, in the buttery (bouteillerie), where bottles and glasses were washed, and, plunging into it, saved his life, but was much burnt. The other four, Evan de Foix (bastard son of the Count Gaston), Hugonin de Guisay, the Compte de Joigny, and Charles de Poictiers, were burnt to death.[Pg 142] This sad event caused much to be said respecting the excesses of the Court; the King, it was rumoured, being then of an age to give up boyish sports and pastimes, and assume the severity and gravity of a great sovereign.[21]
The Gothic artist has succeeded in rendering the story with great graphic truth and completeness. The King beneath the robe of the Duchess—Nantouillet plunging into the tub of water—the agony of the four sufferers—the astonishment and grief of the Duke of Orleans—nothing, in short, is omitted; and, with all the accessories of musicians, furniture, &c. &c., the picture forms a most interesting and precious record of the manners of the time.[Pg 143]
THE DUCHESS OF ORLEANS QUITTING PARIS.
The malady to which the King of France was subject generally attacked him every year, when he was for a time subject to delirium and madness. The disease defied all the attempts of the physicians. The royal family, as a last resource, threw themselves into the hands of the sorcerers of the time, who, to explain away their failures, declared that the devil had communicated to them the fact that the Duchess of Orleans, a daughter of the Duke of Milan, had, by magic arts, laid the King under a charm, with the view of causing his death, and so becoming Queen of France. These accusations soon became known and spoken of throughout all Paris, insomuch that the Duchess, to avoid the scandal of such reports, retired to Asnieres, where the Duke had a handsome château, and remained a long time absent from the Court.
The picture was selected on account of showing the mode of riding adopted by ladies of rank of the period; which, unlike that of the lower orders, appears very similar to the present manner, except that the saddle or pad appears to be without the peculiar pommel, or rather horn, used.[Pg 147][Pg 146]
RECONCILIATION OF SIR OLIVER DE CLISSON AND THE DUKE OF BRITTANY.
The feud that commenced, or rather recommenced, between Sir Oliver de Clisson and the Duke of Brittany, on account of the shelter afforded by the latter to Sir Peter de Craon, continued for a considerable time to harass the province; deadly engagements continually occurring, in which neither side showed any mercy. In this warfare, however, Sir Oliver had the advantage, as two-thirds of the country were in his favour. The Duke, aware that he should gain nothing by continuing the struggle, proposed an interview, which was declined by Sir Oliver, unless the eldest son of the Duke was left at his castle as an hostage. Sir Oliver had good reason to dread treachery from previous experience, and knew well that his death in any way would be pleasing to the Duke, who, in a time when treachery and cold-blooded murder were things of every-day occurrence, would probably not have scrupled to rid himself of an enemy in such a way. In the present instance, however, the feud was not destined to end by the assassination of either party. The Duke, at last, being determined to put an end to the war, sent the Viscount de Rohan, the Lord de Monboucher, and Sir Ives de Tegre, with his eldest son, to Castle Josselin, the residence of Sir Oliver, who was so much moved by this trait of confidence and sincerity, that he refused to detain the boy, and returned with him to his father at Vannes, the appointed place of meeting. Such occasional traits of generosity are the redeeming features in the dark picture of these times, and seldom failed in producing striking results. In this instance the termination of a long enmity was the immediate consequence; a treaty was agreed to in which each restored the lands and places taken in the war; and the Lord de Blois, who had married a daughter of De Clisson, and had some pretensions to the Dukedom of Brittany, received several castles and townships.[22][Pg 151][Pg 150]
JEHAN DE VARENNES PREACHING.
Froissart gives a short but interesting notice of the preaching of Jehan de Varennes, one of those restless but disinterested spirits who prepared the way for the Reformation. He says:—
“At this time, there was a clerk, well skilled in science, Doctor of Laws, and Auditor of the Palace: he was a native of the Archbishopric of Rheims, and called Sir John de Varennes.
“He was much advanced in the church for the services he had rendered Pope Clement and others, and was on the point of being a Bishop or Cardinal. He had also been chaplain to a Cardinal, called, at Avignon, Saint Peter of Luxembourg. This John de Varennes, beneficed and advanced as he was, resigned all, retaining only for his subsistence the canonry of our Lady at Rheims, which is worth by residence one hundred francs, otherwise not more than thirty.
“He quitted Avignon, returned to his native country, and fixed his abode at the village of Saint Lye, near Rheims, where he led a devout life, preaching the faith and works of our Lord, and praising the Pope of Avignon.
“He declared he was the true Pope, condemning by his speeches that of Rome. He was much attended to and followed by the people, who came to see him from all countries, for the sober and holy life he led, fasting daily, and for the fine sermons he preached. Some, however, said, that the Cardinals at Avignon had sent him thither to support their cause, and to exhibit the holiness of his life, which was devout enough to entitle him to be raised to the Papacy.
“Master John de Varennes would not allow himself to be called the holy man of Saint Lye, but simply the Auditor. He lived with his mother, and every day said mass very devoutly.
“All that was given him—for he asked for nothing—he distributed in alms to the glory of God.”[23]
This miniature is very carefully executed, and exhibits in an interesting manner the arrangements of a conventicle of the fourteenth or fifteenth century.[24] The artist has not failed to make evident that in his day, as in ours, the greater number and most devout proselytes of the popular preacher were females.[Pg 155][Pg 154]
THE FUNERAL OF RICHARD THE SECOND.
This is the last miniature in the MS. of the British Museum, and completes the present selection from that beautiful but unfortunately incomplete work. Froissart gives the following account of the funeral of Richard:—
“It was not long after this that a true report was current in London of the death of Richard of Bordeaux. I could not learn the particulars of it, nor how it happened, the day I wrote these chronicles. Richard of Bordeaux, when dead, was placed on a litter covered with black, and a canopy of the same. Four black horses were harnessed to it, and two varlets in mourning conducted the litter, followed by four knights, dressed also in mourning. Thus they left the Tower of London, where he died, and paraded the streets at a foot’s pace, until they came to Cheapside, which is the greatest thoroughfare in the city, and there they halted upwards of two hours. More than twenty thousand persons of both sexes came to see the King, who lay in the litter, his head on a black cushion, and his face uncovered.
“Some pitied him when they saw him in this state, but others did not, saying he had for a long time deserved death. Now consider, ye lords, dukes, prelates, and earls, how very changeable the fortunes of this world are. This King reigned twenty-two years in great prosperity, and with much splendour; for there never was a king of England who expended such sums, by more than one hundred thousand florins, as King Richard did in keeping up his state and his household establishments. I, John Froissart, canon and treasurer of Chimay, know it well; for I witnessed and examined it during my residence with him for a quarter of a year. He made me good cheer, because in my youth I had been secretary to King Edward, his grandfather, and the Lady Philippa of Hainault, Queen of England. When I took my leave of him at Windsor, he presented me, by one of his knights, called Sir John Golofre, a silver-gilt goblet, weighing full two marcs, filled with one hundred nobles, which were then of service to me, and will be so, as long as I live.
“I am bound to pray to God for him, and sorry am I to hear of his death;[Pg 158] but, as I have dictated and augmented this history to the utmost of my power, it became necessary to mention it, that what became of him might be known.
“I saw two strange things in my time, though widely different. I was sitting at dinner, in the city of Bordeaux, when King Richard was born; it was on a Wednesday, on the point of ten o’clock.
“At that hour Sir Richard de Pontchardon, then Marshal of Aquitaine, came to me and said—‘Froissart, write, that it may be remembered, my lady the princess is brought to bed of a fine son. He is born on Twelfth-day, the son of a king’s son, and shall be king himself.’ The gallant knight foretold the truth, for he was King of England twenty-two years; but he did not see what was to be the conclusion of his life.
“When King Richard was born, his father was in Galicia, which Don Pedro had given him to conquer. A curious thing happened upon my first going to England, which I have much thought of since. I was in the service of Queen Philippa, and when she accompanied King Edward and the royal family to take leave of the Prince of Wales at Berkhampstead, on their departure for Aquitaine, I heard an ancient knight, in conversation with some ladies, say, ‘We have a book called Brut, that declares neither the Prince of Wales, Dukes of Clarence, York, nor Gloucester, will be kings of England, but the descendants of the Duke of Lancaster.’ Now I, the author of this history, say that, considering all things, these two knights, Sir Richard de Pontchardon and Sir Bartholomew Burghersh, in what they said, were both in the right; for all the world saw Richard reign for twenty-two years in England, and the crown then fell to the house of Lancaster.
“King Henry would never have been king, on the conditions you have heard, if his cousin Richard had treated him in the friendly manner he ought to have done. The Londoners took his part for the wrongs the King had done him and his children, whom they much compassioned.”
“When the funeral car of King Richard had remained in Cheapside two hours, it was conducted forward, in the same order as before, out of town. The four knights then mounted their horses, which were waiting for them, and continued their journey with the body until they reached a village, where there is a royal mansion, called Langley, thirty-six miles from London. There King Richard was interred: God pardon his sins, and have mercy on his soul.”[25]
The book called Brut, alluded to by Froissart, is the romance of Brut, by Robert Wall.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] In a few impressions of the plate this is erroneously spelt Montadour.
[2] Johnes’ translation.
[3] “Of Sir Peter de Craon, and how he incurred the indignation of the King of France and the Duke of Touraine, his brother, and how he was received by the Duke of Brittany.” Chap. XXV.
[4] “At the time I am now speaking of was too great,” &c.
[5] Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. ii. p. 593.
[6] Ibid. vol. ii. p. 602.
[7] Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. ii. page 536.
[8] Smith’s edition of Froissart, Memoir, page xxiv., end vol. II., pages 568 and 577.
[9] Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. II., p. 644.
[10] Smith’s edition of Froissart, Vol. II., p. 78.
[11] See Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. ii. p. 588.
[12] See Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. ii. page 698.
[13] See Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. ii. p. 612.
[14] See Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. ii. p. 702.
[15] “In this year, in the month of September, died at his palace at Avignon Robert of Geneva, previously mentioned in our history,” &c. &c. See Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. ii. p. 563.
[16] See Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. ii. p. 35.
[17] See Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. i. p. 681, and vol. ii. p. 566.
[18] Froissart has previously described her as the sister of Wenceslaus, King of Bohemia, who became Emperor of Germany, and took the title of Emperor of Rome also.
[19] 29th January, 1392, Old Style.—Note of Buchon.
[20] The Monk of St. Denis says, “C’était une coutume pratiquée en divers lieux de la France, de faire impunément mille folies au mariage des femmes veuves, et d’emprunter avec des habits extravagants la liberté de dire des vilenies au mari et à l’épousée. Voilà pourquoi le Roi et ses cinques compagnons se déguisèrent en satyres et dansèrent des danses lascives en présence de toute la cour.”—Note of Buchon.
[21] For a full and most interacting account of this event, see Smith’s edition of Froissart, vol. ii. p. 550.
[22] For other particulars, and the History of the long contest between the Houses of Montfort and Blois for the Duchy of Brittany, see Smith’s edition of Froissart, Index at end of Vol. II., Articles Montfort, and Blois.
[23] See Smith’s edition of Froissart, Vol. II. page 565.
[24] De Varennes preached about 1390.
[25] See Smith’s edition of Froissart, Vol. II. page 708.
| Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber: |
|---|
| Geoffry=> Geoffrey {pgs. 21 & 22} |