six years from 1372 to 1378. Some MSS. do not extend beyond the year 1372, while in others the sections dealing with the first and third epochs have, without being entirely recast, been retouched in certain details. The "second edition" was produced, there is little doubt, between 1380 and 1383; and the "third edition," which is a mere fragment stopping at the death of Philip of Valois in 1350, at some date posterior to 1400, since it contains a reference to the assassination of Richard II. of England.

A cynical explanation of these "editions," to which the case of Joinville or Villehardouin offers no analogy, is to say that they are adaptations of the Chroniques to the circumstances in which Froissart found. himself that they represent the mutations of Fortune both individual and national, as regards himself and as regards England and France. Stated baldly, this account of the matter might be a trifle unjust to Froissart, whose motives would thus appear purely venal, whereas his change of tone may be more accurately ascribed partly to temperamental causes, such as a genial, sympathetic, impressionable nature, and partly to increased knowledge inevitably leading him to modified opinions of men and causes. No doubt, however, Froissart was by choice, as well as by habit, a courtier.

The first "edition" was wholly favourable to the English, and this predilection is explained both by the martial renown of the people and by Froissart's residence in the country as a pensionary of Queen Philippa, and afterwards at the court of Robert of

Namur, a warm partisan of Edward III. and the Black Prince. Later, Du Guesclin revives the lustre of the French arms, and Froissart's new patrons, Duke Wencelas and the Count de Blois, are pro-French in their sympathies. The chronicler gains fresh information about Crécy and Poitiers, and is brought to see things in an altered light. The result is a second 'edition." This second "edition" is notable for its linguistic changes. Froissart was born on what may be called "debateable ground," with Germany on one side, France on another, and England separated by not many miles of sea. In his Dit du Florin he informs us that he knows three languages-French, English, and "Thiois" (i.e., German, deutsch). His mother

66

tongue was, of course, French, and his Chroniques are written in that language; but the second "edition " contains a good many variants-such as w for b or v; ch for c soft, and c hard or k for ch-smacking of Walloon. The third edition is also, in a large measure, Walloon; and in it Froissart's estrangement from the English, who had fallen on evil days and murdered the grandson of his former patroness, Queen Philippa, is complete. Further, as has been already observed, Froissart in this third version "sheds," so to speak, Le Bel.

With regard to this writer, it is necessary to say that there is not one Froissart, but three Froissarts. A matter As the name is to some extent a variable quantity, it is important to determine in what sense it is to be used, or, more definitely, which of the three "editions" is to be accepted for general

of taste.

purposes as authentic. Contrary to the ordinary usage in such cases, M. Siméon Luce1 has assigned the preference to what he terms "the first edition revised," and, in so doing, he has exercised a wise choice. While, as regards most histories, the latest edition i would represent the mature results of additional years of study and research, Froissart's alterations consist in the substitution of one ex parte statement for another. 1 Dispassionate criticism has no bias in favour of French, as opposed to English, evidence, so that the ¦ question is removed from the court in which historical disputes are wont to be adjusted, and instead of a tribunal of Truth we set up a tribunal of Taste.

It

If Froissart's reputation depended on accuracy in matter of fact, it would very soon collapse, and what wonder, seeing that he relied for Difficulties. his information on oral testimony? was not Froissart's fault. He never slackened in searching for, and comparing, this higher gossip. Already stricken in years, he travelled to Bruges on purpose to acquaint himself with the affairs of Portugal and Castille. Whilst there, he learns that a counsellor of the King of Portugal is in Zealand. Accordingly, he goes in quest of him, and spends several days examining him. To appraise the value of such testimony, a good way is to interrogate. the oldest and ablest inhabitants of a district about past events. The discrepancies will be startling. Carelessness, lapses of memory, prejudice, levity, and

1 In the edition of the "Société de l'Histoire de France," begun in

1869.

malice are some of the causes tending to invalidate the evidence of a single witness, or even of several witnesses, unconfirmed by documentary proof. Now, with regard to documentary proof, Froissart occupies a singularly unfortunate position. His predecessors had no occasion to trouble themselves about state archives, which-until, at least, the twelfth centurycould hardly be said to exist. It follows that, in the majority of cases, it is impossible to "check" the assertions of the chroniclers. After the sixteenth century, the invention of printing led to the multiplication of "pièces officielles," and the historians make good use of these sources. During the middle period Froissart and his brethren, though the precious documents existed, were none the better for the circumstance. The documents embodied state secrets, and the merely curious investigator could not be permitted to investigate them. To-day, this caution being no longer necessary, students can examine and compare at their leisure. What is the result? Why, that Froissart appears either as an elaborate liar or as a systematic blunderer. So far as particulars are concerned his credit is largely gone.

Nor is this deficiency redeemed by a sound and clear understanding of the phenomena of the age. A personal Froissart's aristocratic sympathies are in limitation. part to blame. The rise of a substantial middle-class, the discontent and revolutionary temper of the peasants, would not be treated by an ideal historian as immaterial, or simply as causes of alarm. By an ideal historian the shifting of the political

schwerpunkt would be observed with profound attention, and recorded with extreme care. But Froissart's preoccupations are entirely opposed to such procedure. It would be paying far too much respect to the canaille. In the year 1355 King John II., under pressure of an expected invasion by the English, convoked the estates of the realm in the halls of the Parliament of Paris, the object being to procure supplies, both men and money. Each of the three orders replied through its speaker that they were "appareillés de vivre et de mourir avec le roi," but that the consent of all three estates was necessary in respect of each proposal. In other words, the despised "tiers état "the citizen element in French society-had now risen to equal importance, collectively, with the clergy and nobility. Froissart summarises these proceedings in the unmeaning assertion that the estates " placed their persons and property at the service of the king."1

1 A corrective of this partial mode of presentment may be found in the Grandes Chroniques de France, which furnish the official version, interlarded with authentic documents, and were drawn up, first by the monks of St Denis and afterwards by secular writers appointed by the king. From these Grandes Chroniques it is possible to glean a large amount of information concerning the "liberal movement" of the fourteenth century. Still more interesting is & Chronique Anonyme des Quatre Premiers Valois, extending from 1327 to 1393, and therefore as nearly as may be covering the ground of Froissart's Chroniques. Two features characterise this anonymous chronicle. One is its remarkable agreement with official declarations, which it may often be employed to supplement. The other is its rejection of the old feudal, aristocratic spirit, and the sympathy shown for Etienne Marcel and the party of reform in their efforts to establish a free government. The Norman author of this chronicle is the historian of the "tiers état."