Chronicles

Discussing Froissart’s biography and significance, Geoffrey Brereton describes Froissart as “the first of the great war-reporters” (9). Also, it is important to note that Froissart wrote in prose. As Brereton observes, many writers in Froissart’s time wrote in verse. Still, Brereton argues that Froissart’s Chronicles should be considered “literature” as much as the writings of the poet Petrarch (9).

Brereton next describes Froissart’s biography. He was born in the County of Hainault, meaning he was likely ethnically Dutch while growing up as a French speaker. Possibly from a family of merchants, Froissart was hired as a poet and chronicler by various monarchs and noble families, most notably Robert of Namur, who was Froissart’s patron when he started writing his Chronicles (11-12). Over the course of his life, Froissart lived and traveled in France, England, Scotland, Italy, and the Netherlands.

Froissart’s Chronicles are based on and continues from the more obscure chronicle written by Jean Le Bel. However, Brereton notes that Froissart has a more detailed description of the Battle of Poitiers than Le Bel. After finishing Book I of his Chronicles, Froissart went from having the pro-English patron Robert of Namur to pro-French patrons Guy de Châtillon and Wenceslas of Bohemia (13). Still, Brereton cautions against seeing Froissart as being too pro-French or pro-English. This is because “the concept of nationalism which it implies would be anachronistic in the society for which he wrote” (14). Secondly, Brereton argues that “Froissart was always striving to be impartial” (14). Not much is known about Froissart’s life after the Chronicles ends at the year 1400. There is a hypothesis that he died sometime around 1410 (15).

Brereton describes the Chronicles as a mostly military but also “political and social” historical record “as seen from the viewpoints of the courts in which [Froissart] lived” (15). Froissart drew from existing records and documents, but he largely relied on conversations with the veterans of battles and with heralds, who had the task of recording details from the battles they witnessed. Further, Froissart includes details, such as the unique style of speaking of the Duke of Gloucester (18), which were likely gained from personal interviews.

Also, Brereton argues that Froissart was writing for an audience of nobles involved in combat. Still, he also argues that Froissart’s “portrait” of chivalry “is not all idealistic” (18). Even though he was a priest himself, Froissart is also skeptical toward the Church. In fact, Brereton asserts that Froissart was very much a product of the middle class, which would come to dominate Europe, and the “germs of both protestantism and humanism are in his work” (22).

Finally, Brereton writes that Froissart’s style as a writer and historian changes over the course of the Chronicles. His attitudes toward peasant revolts change (21), and his writing style becomes more informal (23). In particular, Froissart writes conversationally, which includes writing conversations he could not have overheard. Brereton admits that his translation is “covering less than one-sixth of the total length of the Chronicles” (27), omitting repetitive details and chapters that had little to do with the Hundred Years War.