Chronicles

Here, we see how careful Froissart is to present perspectives on both the English and Scottish in their conflict. He notes that he was spoken to “by those on the Scottish side” (347). This allows him, as he does elsewhere when writing of Chivalry, Honor, and War, to discuss the “great deeds” (344) of someone like the Scottish nobleman the Earl of Douglas, even though he was killed in the Battle of Otterburn. In fact, Froissart praises both the Scottish and the English, comparing them favorably to Germans. He describes soldiers from both sides as fighters who “stand their ground in battle” and who “treat their prisoners well without pressing too hard for money, behaving chivalrously to one another…” (345).

Although Froissart does not explicitly call attention to them, there are also parallels between Richard II and his ancestor Edward II. Both are influenced by bad advisors; for Edward II, it is Hugh Despencer, and for Richard II, it is Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland. Also, Froissart’s presentation of Nobility, Burghers, and Peasants presents a quote attributed to Richard II’s council, complaining:

The King listens only to bad people, of mean birth in comparison with princes…It always happens that, when a poor man rises in the world and is honored by his master, he becomes corrupt and ruins the people and the country. A base man has no idea of what honour means, but wants to grab everything and gobble it up, just like an otter in a pond destroying all the fish it finds there.” (316)

This happens to summarize Froissart’s pro-noble view that nobles are more trustworthy than advisors from the lower classes because (supposedly) they would be more motivated by self-interest since nobles already have at least some wealth and are raised with the concept of honor.