2331. Robert Knolles. Called by Froissart ‘Canolles’, and placed not here, but in the 3rd Company.1
2333. Louis, Vicomte de Rochechouart, nephew of Aimery.2
2335. John Bourchier (see Index).
2337. The Seneschal of Aquitaine from 1363 was Thomas Felton;3 already mentioned by name above.
2339. William Felton (already mentioned in vanguard) was Seneschal of Poitou; there was no separate seneschal for Angoumois.4
2340. The Seneschal of Saintonge was Baldwin de Fréville from Sept., 1364.5
2341. Seneschal of Périgord and Quercy. Thomas de Walkfare.6
2344. Seneschal fo Bigorre. Jean de Roches.7
2361-2. The passage of the rearguard began Wednesday, 17th Feb.
2363. The King of Majorca is mentioned by Ayala, Walter of Peterborough and others. He was the son of James II, who had been driven out of his kingdom by Pedro of Aragon. Thus he was only king de jure, not de facto: some books call him King of Naples, because of his marriage with Jeanne I in 1362.8
2365. Jean, Comte d’Armagnac de Fézensac et de Rodez, Vicomte de Lomaigne et d‘Anvillars. One of the most important of the Gascon nobles.
2366. This is probably Bérard d’Albret, Sire de Puch Normand, since Froissart here calls him nephew of the Sire d’Albret.9 Arnaud Amanieu had also a brother Bérard d’Albret, Sire de Sainte-Bazeille, who deserted the English in 1370.10
2367. Raymond de Montaut, Sire de Mussidan et de Blaye.11
2371. Bertucat or Perduccas d’Albret: probably an illegitimate son of Bernard Ezi, and a member of the Grand Company.12
2373. The bastard of Breteuil.13
2374-7. The rest of these name, Camus, Naudon de Bageran, Lami or Lamit, are mentioned earlier in Froissart when he enumerates the members of the Great Companies.14
2383. The arrival in the valley of Pampeluna was accopmplished about 20th Feb.15
2388. Arnaud Amanieu, Sire d’Albret, nephew of Armagnac.
2389. Jean de Grailly, Captal de Buch, had been fighting for the King of Navarre, and being captured at Cocherel did homage to the French King (1354); but on his return to Guienne he re-entered the service of the Black Prince.16
2391. This mention of the 200 combatants, which each brought, indirectly supports the story given by Froissart17 to explain the origin of the quarrel between the Black Prince and d’Albred: the former, thinking the latter dangerous, countermanded the 1,000 armed men which he had promised to supply, and requested him to bring only 200. Luce thinks the dispute arose from a different cause; namely, the failure of the Prince of Wales to pay certain rents due 207 to d’Albret, which the French King took upon himself to make good.18 The story of the knights need not, however, be without foundation.
2397. Perfectly correct, as we learn from Ayala.19
2402-40. Ayala does not mention this letter to the Black Pr5ince, which has been copied almost word for word by Froissart;20 but we have no reason to doubt the truth of this event, as the Herald would certainly have had information on the subject, and, for the council held to discuss the matter, we may consider his authority good (2441-4). Unfortunately the letter has neither place nor date. Froissart, in the abridged Chronicle which he published at a later date, has tried to remedy this omission, and adds to the letter ‘Burgos, 17th February’.21 This must, however, be a mistake, for Henry, as we have seen, was at St. Domingo, and on the 17th the English army was still on the march; the news could scarcely have been brought to him so early.
2450-64. Our poem appears again to be the principal authority for this expedition of Sir Thomas Felton, and Froissart has reproduced it with very slight additions. The face that the same name figures in the second more disastrous adventure, when an English detachment was cut off by a party of Spaniards under Don Tello (lines 2725 sq.), has led to some apparent confusion between these two events by less well-informed chroniclers, and may perhaps explain the general omission of this previous undertaking. The Herald enters sufficiently into details to give his narrative every semblance of verity.
2461. Froissart calls him Thomas du Fort,22 but according to Beltz, as we have seen, there was a Thomas d’Ufford amongst the Knights of the Garter.23
2462. William Felton. Very likely to be in his brother’s Company.
2463. Hugh, son of Ralph, afterwards second Earl of Stafford.24 Called Stanfort by Froissart.
Robert Knolles.
2466. Simon Burleigh.
2475. Luce has inserted a note to the similar account given by Froissart, that it is the Navarete in Alava to which reference is here made, because the army was en route to Burgos, through Vitoria, and that therefore it is a mistake to state that they crossed the Ebro at Logroño.25 If, however, Felton’s motive was to spy upon the Spanish army while still quartered at St. Domingo, it must have been the Navarete nearest to that place which is here intended, and that appears from the map to be the one in the Province of Logroño, and on the right bank of the Ebro, which would entail crossing the river in coming from Navarre. The main army advanced later through Alava to Vitoria, but that was because their search-party had sent word of Henry’s change of quarters; in this case the words of the Poem would be absolutely correct. It is rather uncertain, however, how long Henry remained at St. Domingo: his positions after leaving that place, were, according to Ayala, Banares (right bank of Ebro), near Trevino (left bank), Zaldieran (heights of Alava): but he probably marched fairly rapidly from St. Domingo to Zaldieran.
2479. The whole question of this imprisonment of Charles of Navarre is very complicated. That he was captured by Olivier de Mauny is universally acknowledged; but the date of the event, the nature of the capture, and the length of the imprisonment are all matters of doubt. Ayala has no hesitation in asserting that it was all a matter of arrangement between Charles and De Mauny, in order that the former might save himself from the responsibility of taking a part in the war, and so embroiling himself with one side or the other. In recompense, he adds, 208 Olivier was promised money and the castle of Gavrai in Normandy; but, as soon as the necessity for his imprisonment was over, the King obtained his release by leaving his young son as hostage, and finally arrested Olivier de Mauny himself and repudiated his engagements.26 This is doubtless the account of an enemy, but it is not without support. The Grandes Chroniques speak of it as a pre-arranged scheme,27 and Froissart says that there was a general belief among the English that it was the King’s own device.28 A recent biographer and apologist of Charles the Bas has vehemently opposed this view,29 declaring that Ayala’s story is absurd on the face of it, that the promise of the cession of Gavrai was an impossible one, and that he could never have left as hostage a child of two or three years of age. He adopts, without hesitation, an account for which the Chronicle of the First Four Valois is the sole authority.30 According to this, Olivier de Mauny was sent by Bertrand du Guesclin to present Navarre from allowing the passage of the invaders, while the Black Prince was still engaged in his preparations at Bordeaux; it was at this time that Charles was taken prisoner, but released on giving hostages. Thus, he concludes, the capture too place before any agreement was made with Don Pedro, and therefore Ayala’s story is completely disproved. But this explanation is untenable. It neglects the obvious fact that Charles had made engagements with Pedro as early as Sept., 1366; it does not answer the question what possible advantage could have been gained by Henry if the prisoner were released in time to continue the alliance with his enemies; and it takes not notice of the fact that the other chroniclers agree with Ayala in placing these events at the later date.
There are also, I think, other indications that the Spanish historian was not so far wrong in his conjectures.
(1) Feb.11, 1368. Payment due to Lopez Ochoa, Captain of Caparroso, for sums spent during the captivity of ‘Olivier Claquin’.31 Olivier de Mauny was a cousin of du Guesclin, and as it certainly cannot refer to Olivier du Guesclin, Bertrand’s brother, it probably alludes to the imprisonment of which Ayala speaks.
(2) During the course of 1369 and 1370 there are records of various sums of money paid to Olivier de Mauny.32
(3) Feb. 4, 1369. Homage of Olivier de Mauny at Borja, to Charles of Navarre, for castles and lands in Normandy. At the same date he makes this declaration: ‘Whereas in times past the King of Navarre has had treaties with me, for which he gave me certain rents and towns, &c., I promise to restore these letters, the promises being no longer binding.’33
The conclusion to be drawn from the evidence we possess at present appears to me to be this. That Navarre, anxious above all things to remain at peace, and to avoid the devastation of his country from the passage of hostile troops, found himself forced to make arrangements with Pedro and the Prince of Wales; that, with his usual duplicity, he did not hesitate to sign a treaty immediately afterwards with Henry of Trastamare, in the hopes of reaping some benefit from whichever side was successful. That finding his plan was discovered, and also possibly alarmed by Hugh of Calverley, he renewed his earlier alliance with the side which appeared to him to be the more formidable, and, to conciliate the troops, accompanied them into his own country, and entertained them when there. That anxious, however, to have an excuse for breaking his promise to assist the Black Prince, he made the arrangement with Olivier de Mauny which resulted in his own imprisonment before the fighting began. That after the battle of Navarete, thinking the immediate danger over, he contrived his release and then 209 captured Olivier in his turn, as a means of diverting attention from his own duplicity, and of convincing the world that his imprisonment had been involuntary. That the subsequently recompensed Mauny with various gifts, although his original promises were not kept, the reward then offered being probably considered too high. That Mauny, being induced to surrender his just claims in return for what he could get, gave up the proof of this previous engagement, which is therefore never likely to be forthcoming.
As for the exact date of the imprisonment, the Grandes Chroniques alone attempt to consider this question,34 giving it as March 13, 1367. This should be approximately correct, according to what we learn from Chandos an Ayala. The troops were in Pampeluna on Feb. 20th, and the battle of Nájera as fought on April 3rd, so that it took place some time between these two events, and it must have been early in march if the Prince did not leave Navarre until after hearing the news. Charles’s release probably took place quite shortly after the battle: he was, in any case, back in his kingdom by June 20th, as we find him again signing an act on that date.35 (No acts are published by Brutails between Sept. 27, 1366, and June 20, 1367.
2482-90. Froissart also gives this incident; but he differs slightly from Chandos, in saying that the Queen came in person and afterwards sent La Carra to guide the Prince through the country.36
The one certainty is that La Carra did accompany the army and fought in its ranks in the battle of Nájera.
2507-14. The Prince crossed the Pass of Arruiz, rode through Guipuzcoa, and came to Salvatierra in Alava.
Froissart has the same account, even to the spelling of the names; there seems no doubt as to his copying.
2521. The surrender of Salvatierra without resistance is confirmed by Ayala.37
2542-70. The account of all this has been copied by Froissart. We can verify from Ayala the fact that Henry took up his quarters at Zaldieran only a slight distance from Vitoria, to which place the army advanced.38
2605-28. Froissart has given the same list of those knighted, and in the same order, but with a few differences of spelling;39 he has also added the names of those knighted by Chandos, which our author does not insert until just before the battle of Nájera (3199-3205).
2609. Thomas Holland, afterwards second Earl of Kent; he was only seventeen at this date, so that his knighting is most probable, it being his first expedition.40
1 Froissart, vii. 9.
2 Anselm, iv. 653.
3 Tauzin, in Revue de Gascogne, 1891.
4 Bibl. Nat. Fonds Lat. 18391, fol. 67 vo: ‘Gme de Feltoune Sénéschal de Poitou pour notre seigneur le prince d’Aquitaine,’ Nov. 1366.
5 Rymer, iii, pt. ii, p. 133?
6 Arch. Nat. J 642, No. 2. Power to receive money given to t. de Walkfare, ‘Sen. de Caorsin et de Pierregort,’ 16 Oct., 1366.
7 Arch. Nat., J 642, No. 2. Similar notice, 29 Jan., 1366.
8 Froissart,vi, p. xiv, note.
9 Froissart, vii. 9.
10 Arch. Nat. JJ 100, No. 670.
11 Anselme, vii. 603; vi. 222.
12 Froissart, vi, p. lxxxi, note 3.
13 Froissart, vii. 9.
14 Froissart, vi. 189.
15 Froissart, vii. p. vi, note 3.
16 Secousse, Mémoire pour servir à l’histoire de Charles le Mauvais. Paris, 1755, 4to, 71, 72.
17 Froissart, vi. 230.
18 Froissart, vi, p. xcvi, note 2.
19 Ayala, 439.
20 Froissart, vii. 11.
21 Froissart, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, xvii. 442.
22 Froissart, vii, 13.
23 Beltz, 127.
24 Beltz, 212.
25 Froissart, vii, p. vii, note 3.
26 Ayala, 436, 464. See also Cascales, Discursos históricos. Murcia, 1621, 4to, fol. 116.
27 Grandes Chroniques, vi. 245.
28 Froissart, vii. 14.
29 E. Meyer, Charles II, roi de Navarre. Paris, 1898, p. 173.
30 Chronique des quatre premiers Valois, 171.
Error. No number in text to match the number of this reference. Chandos, Froissart, Grandes Chroniques.
31 Brutails, Docts. des Archives de Navarre, 162.
32 Isarn, Comptes de Navarre; Bibl. Nat., Fonds Fr. 10367.
33 Brutails, 169.
34 Grandes Chroniques, vi. 245.
35 Brutails, 158.
36 Froissart, vii. 14.
37 Ayala, 445.
38 Ayala, 445, 447.
39 Froissart, vii. 18, 19.
40 Beltz,217.