1707. Bertrand had been promised large sums to get the Companies out of France, and we read of the halt made on the way by the army of adventurers at Villeneuve-lès-Avignon, and their successful demand for Papal absolution and a large sum of money at the same time.1
1709-11. Chandos passes very briefly over those parts of his narrative on which he could not have had personal knowledge. They travelled in different detachments, as is shown by the dates at which the various commanders passed through Montpellier, between Nov. 5th and Dec. 24th; and in January, 1366, they were received by the King of Aragon at Barcelona. 2
1712-26. This message sent to Don Pedro is only mentioned by Froissart, but it does not appear to have been copied, as he omits the demand for peace with Aragon and adds a reply sent by Pedro, who on receipt of the news ‘ne fist que rire, et respondi qu’il n’en feroit riens, ne que il n’obeiroit ja a tel truandaille.’3 Apart from this corroboration, some sort of communication would probably have been made by the invaders.
1739-45. This statement appears to be coloured by national partiality. Froissart says that all that Pedro had taken from the King of Aragon was recovered, but makes no special mention of the English captains;4 while the Lives of du Guesclin, in their turn, ascribe the capture of Magalon and Borja to the prowess of their special hero.5 As he was leader of the expedition this credit is probably not undeserved; nevertheless Cuvelier repeatedly mentions the names of Gournay and Calverley in connexion with these events, and they must undoubtedly have distinguished themselves.
1751-5. The date given by Ayala of Pedro’s flight from Burgos is 28th March,6 nearly three months after the first arrival of the Companies; but it is in truth less than a month after the capture of Borja and Magalon, to which reference has just been made, and which fell to the invaders at the beginning of March.7
1771. More precise detail as to Henry’s coronation are given in the other Chronicles.8 After being proclaimed at Calahorra, he was crowned at Burgos on Easter Day, 5th April, 1366, according to the Grandes Chroniques; this date, though not given elsewhere except in the Chronographia rerum Francorum, is at least correct as to the date of Easter in that year, and there seems no reason to doubt it: the prose Life of du Guesclin also mentions that it took place on a Sunday.
1775-82. This is apparently true, though Chandos is not always very accurately informed as to the proceedings of Don Pedro;9 his treasures at Seville also receive frequent notice, Cuvelier making special mention of a certain golden table, which he describes later as given to the Prince of Wales.
1785-7. There is probably an error here. The Live of du Guesclin speak of Pedro as sailing to Lisbon and having a personal interview with the King of Portugal,10 but Ayala, who is more likely to be well informed upon proceedings in Spain, after describing the failure of Pedro’s negotiations with Portugal for the marriage of his daughter (who went to Lisbon, but unaccompanied by her father), gives the details of his journey overland to Galicia, through Albuquerque and Monterey, in which latter place he was joined by Fernando de Castro.11
2011788-96. That all did homage to Henry is apparently true as far as the great nobles scattered about the country are concerned;12 a certain number of followers, however, had remained with Pedro throughout his wanderings: Martin Lopez de Cordova, Master of Alcantara; Matheos Fernandez, Chancellor; and Martin Yanez, Treasurer, had accompanied him to Seville,13 and the names of the first two are on the Treaty made with the Black Prince and signed by Pedro at Bayonne.14
1795. Fernandez de Castro. He had been an ally of Henry of Trastamare, whose sister he married, but had rejoined Pedro in 1354 and remained faithful from that time onwards.15
Chandos has avoided a mistake made by the French chronicles, who speak of Fernandez travelling with the King to Seville,16 whereas he was really governing in Galicia at the time.17
1825. Corunna in Galicia.
1834-7. In 1344 there had been negotiations for a marriage between Don Pedro and Joan, daughter of Edward III;18 and treaties between England and Castile had been constantly confirmed during the previous years.19
1847. The substance is correct, but the Council seems to have been held at Monterey, from which place the King journeyed to Santiago and thence to Corunna.20
1867-84. Froissart also describes the sending of the letter, which, according to him, contained a direct request for help, with no mention of a desire to come to Aquitaine.21
1885-1942. For the narrative of the proceedings of this Council, held on receipt of Pedro’s letter, Froissart’s account is far fuller and the details are given rather differently.22 He agrees with the Herald that the King asked advice of Chandos and Felton, but they suggested, he says, the expedition to Corunna, which was at once prepared under the command of the latter; but, having been delayed by contrary winds for several days at Bayonne, Pedro arrived in person before they had been able to set out. After his arrival a large Parliament was held, in which the exiled King won the favour of the barons, who were at first inclined to be hostile, by numerous promises; and it was not until after this that Armagnac, Chandos, and the Captal advised an alliance with Navarre, and that Chandos and Felton were sent to Pampeluna to arrange the matter. Ayala gives yet another account,23 for he says that a Gascon noble, the Sire de Poyanne, came to Corunna to invite Pedro to Bordeaux, and that on the Spanish King’s arrival at Bayonne he was met by the Black Prince and Charles of Navarre, who conducted him to Angoulême. The latter part of this statement is obviously incorrect, and the first part is improbably in the face of more trustworthy evidence (Froissart and Chandos both being on the spot), and therefore need not be considered.
It must be confessed that Froissart’s account has an air of greater probability about it than that of Chandos. The pressing question was certainly what answer to make to Pedro before considering the difficulties of a passage into Spain; and if Chandos and Felton really undertook the negotiations with Navarre it must have been after the attempted expedition to fetch the King from Corunna. That the Herald should have been inaccurate over facts which so closely concerned his master may be explained by his desire to pass quickly over these preliminary affairs, and to arrive at what evidently interested him more — the actual campaign in Spain.
1943. The Treaty of Libourne was signed by ‘Vexillarius Mayor Domini Sancii filii regis’. There is nothing to prove the presence of the Prince himself, but it is quite possible. The 202 daughters who accompanied Pedro were Constance, Isabel and Beatrice, children of Marie de Padilla. (Constance afterwards married John of Gaunt, and Isabel the Earl of Cambridge.)
1955-8. A joint conference was apparently held at Bayonne between the Black Prince, Pedro and Charles of Navarre. The latter had already made an alliance with Henry of Trastamare, but was won over by promise of Guipuzcoa, Vitoria, Logroño, Calahorra, and Alfaro.24 On 23rd Sept. 1366 a Treaty was drawn up at Libourne, in presence of Lancaster, Chandos, Felton, the Bishop of Santiago, &c., and signed ‘Yo el Rey’. By this Pedro promised 500,000 florins to the Prince, as well as payment to his followers, and the lands to Navarre.25 His three daughters and the wives of three Spanish nobles were to remain as hostages. These promises were confirmed at Bayonne on the 20th Feb., King Pedro touching the Gospels with his own hands.26
1971-8. The return of the Companies, as here described, agrees in the main with the fuller account given by Froissart.27 He includes, in the part played by Sir John Chandos, a mission to the Comte de Foix, to induce him to allow the passage the passage of the Companies through his country. This is of interest: first because we find here the earliest mention of ‘son Héraut’ who was sent to the Companies to explain the arrangements made; and secondly because Dom Vaissette has questioned the truth of the statement,28 on the plea of the improbability of the adventurers passing through Foix, which would entail a march through the hostile country of Aragon. Certainly it might have been Béarn, which also belonged to the Comte de Foix; but Froissart has taken particular pains to explain how disagreeable the King of Aragon had made it for them while they traversed his country, and how the Passes were all occupied so that they could not return. Another reason for believing what Froissart tells us about the Comte de Foix is that he was personally acquainted with Gaston Phoebus and even wrote part of his Chronicle while residing at his Court.
1989. Sir John Devereux.
Creswell. Froissart calls him ‘Jean Carsuelle’ or ‘Cresuelle’, and Luce has identified him as John Creswey de Burnham.29 But there certainly was a John Creswell fighting in the English army at various dates quite distinct from Creswey, since in the Gascon Rolls these names occur, on the same membrane, as fighting abroad in 1355. This John Creswell receives letters of protection in 1355, 1371, and 1373, and may well be the warrior to whom Chandos here alludes.30
Robert Briquet.
1991. Guardia Raymond, Sire d’Aubeterre.31
1993. Bernard de la Salle.
The only two of these warriors not specially mentioned by Froissart as returning32 are Aubeterre and Bernard de la Salle, but they had been fighting in Spain and were members of the Companies, as we know from other references.33 Our poem omits two names which are given by Froissart, namely those of Calverley and Gournay. This is in reality a proof of its accuracy, for Gournay had been sent by Henry on a mission to Portugal, whence he returned straight to Aquitaine,34 and Calverley could not have come back with the others if it is true that he threatened Navarre by the capture of Puente la Reina and Miranda.35
2018-19. This date is curious — ‘at the time when the gentle gird ceases to sing’, three weeks before Christmas. One would have expected the preparations to begin earlier.
2032031. Dax in the dept. of Landes.
2049. The Prince waited in Bordeaux until after the birth of his son Richard, rather over the fortnight.
2097. Richard of Bordeaux, born January 6, 1367;36 therefore roughly a fortnight after Christmas Day (see line 2049.)
2107-12. The Prince left Bordeaux 10th January, and waited at Dax three days for his brother, according to Froissart.
The Duke of Lancaster had apparently been in England when the first message was sent, to ask the advice of Edward III,37 and was then sent to Gascony to take part in the arrangements, for his name is found amongst those who witness the Treaty at Libourne 23rd Sept. He must have immediately gone home to collect troops, with which he was now returning, leaving England for the second time on January 5, 1367.38
2119. Froissart says Lancaster landed at Saint Malière de Fine Poterne, identified by Luce as a hamlet in Finisterre.39
2125. John de Montfort, Duke of Brittany; he met the Duke of Lancaster at Nantes.
2129. Olivier de Clisson and Sir Robert Knolles.
2135-53. All this agrees perfectly with Froissart’s narrative.
2158. Gaston Phoeubs, Comte de Foix. Froissart says that he arrived at Dax just after the Duke of Lancaster.40
2183. Ayala give his name with the English army at Nájera, but this is obviously a mistake; Froissart agrees with Chandos that he returned immediately, presumably to is own country.41
Walter of Peterborough’s poem says that Foix was left in charge at Bordeaux, together with Pommiers.42 Froissart says ‘il li recarga son pays, et li pria que il en volsist songnier dou garder jusques à son retour’; but does not speak of his going to Bordeaux, for ‘sur ce s’en retourna li dis contes en son pays’. This is not perfectly clear, but may mean that he promised to guard the frontier in case of danger arising during the Prince’s absence. No history of Gaston Phoebus seems to imply his Governorship of Aquitaine, and the Herald is more likely to be correct than Walter of Peterborough.
1 Chronique anonyme, 36; Cuvelier, i. 271; Molinier.
2 Chronique du petit Thalamus de Montpellier (Soc. Arch. de Montpellier, 1840, 4to); Arch. Nat., J 369-70; Molinier, 172.
3 Froissart, vi, 189.
4 Froissart, vi. 190.
5 Cuvelier, i. 287, 290; Chronique anonyme, 37, 38.
6 Ayala, 403.
7 Molinier, 172.
8 Ayala, 401, 407; Grandes Chroniques, vi. 239; Chronographia, 326; Chronique anonyme, 37; Cuvelier, i. 319.
9 Ayala, 403, speaks of his going to Seville.
10 Cuvelier, i. 544; Chronique anonyme, 43.
11 Ayala, 412 sq.
12 Ayala, 408.
13 Ayala, 412.
14 British Museum, Cotton MS. Vespasian C xii, folio 95.
15 Mérimée, 142, 164, 256.
16 Froissart, vi. 191; Cuvelier, i.329.
17 Ayala, 408; Froissart, vi, p. lxxxiv, note 2.
18 Rymer, ii, pt. iv, p. 166.
19 Rymer, ii, pt. ii, pp. 60, 73, 91.
20 Ayala, 416.
21 Froissart, vi. 196.
22 Froissart, vi. 197 sq.
23 Ayala, 419 sq.
24 Rymer, iii, pt. ii, p. 116.
25 Rymer, iii, pt. ii, p. 118; Cotton MSS, Vespasian C xii, fol. 95.
26 Froissart, v. 211-216.
27 Histoire de Languedoc, ix. 782.
28 Froissart, vi, pp. 189 and lxxxiii, note.
29 Gascon Rolls, 29 Ed. III, m. 8 (where both occur), 45 m. 3; Fr. Rolls, 47 m. 27.
30 Froissart, vi, p. lxxxiii, note 7.
31 Froissart, vi, p. xciv, note 1, and lxxxi, note 3.
32 Froissart, vi. 211.
33 Froissart, vi. 226; Ayala, 402.
34 Dict. of Nat. Biography.
35 Chandos, 148; Froissart, vii. 3.
36 Froissart, vii. 1.
37 Froissart, vi. 206.
38 Dictionary of National Biography.
39 Froissart, vii, p. iv, note 3.
40 Froissart, vii. 2.
41 Froissart, vii. 3.
42 Wright‘s Political Songs, i. 104; Froissart, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, vii. 149.