We May Lose More Than We May Gain: Boldness and prudence among Froissart’s warriors
By Steven Muhlberger
Paper given at the International Congress on Medieval Studies (2001)
Introduction: Jean Froissart’s Chronicles, one of the most influential accounts of the first half of the Hundred Years War, was in large part devoted to preserving tales of individual chivalric accomplishment — as Froissart himself said in his preface, it was a record of “honourable enterprises, noble adventures, and deeds of arms,” and with the intention “that brave men [might] be encouraged in their well-doing.” Stories that emphasize the boldness of individual warriors are among the most famous parts of this famous work, and they tend to affect modern readers’ evaluation of the whole. The argument of this paper is that both Froissart and his contemporary readers, however much they loved colorful stories, and however much they were fascinated by individual achievement, did not lack an appreciation of the realities of war; and that among those realities was the fact that boldness, though necessary, was not sufficient for success. As much as Froissart and his readers prized the dramatic deed of arms, and the virtues of courage and prowess, they were also aware of the role of prudence. Indeed, Froissart’s warriors were often torn between what might seem to be contradictory impulses, between boldness and prudence.
I must begin by admitting that Froissart is a tricky author to evaluate. He has often been criticized for inaccuracy. Further, both his poetry and his Chronicles show him to be a very sophisticated writer, quite capable of playing for effect with the conventions of his genre. Laurence de Looze has recently identified Froissart as a chief practitioner of a type of courtly poetry he identifies as “pseudo-autobiographical.” How far can we trust a writer who is a convicted pseudo-autobiographer?
Advertisement
Yet in regard to the subject of this paper, Froissart is very useful. Froissart’s history strongly appealed to those readers and listeners who were fascinated by the long saga of the wars of England and France. These readers included the very rich and very noble — some of whom subsidized Froissart — but clearly more modest men as well. Froissart showed war, as Contamine said, “as seen by the middling man-at-arms, by the ordinary combatant (whose condition was
nevertheless noble).” His contemporary success derived from his ability to show knights, squires, and good men-at-arms, and those who might be sympathetic to them, a recognizable if perhaps flattering picture of themselves. In particular, Froissart must have been very good at making such warriors sound like themselves to themselves. Therefore, when Froissart showed warriors discussing the proper relationship between boldness and prudence, he was reflecting a real debate, a tension that real men-at-arms of his time had to deal with. If there had been no issue, there would have been no story — and everyone agrees Froissart was a storyteller.
We May Lose More Than We May Gain: Boldness and prudence among Froissart’s warriors
By Steven Muhlberger
Paper given at the International Congress on Medieval Studies (2001)
Introduction: Jean Froissart’s Chronicles, one of the most influential accounts of the first half of the Hundred Years War, was in large part devoted to preserving tales of individual chivalric accomplishment — as Froissart himself said in his preface, it was a record of “honourable enterprises, noble adventures, and deeds of arms,” and with the intention “that brave men [might] be encouraged in their well-doing.” Stories that emphasize the boldness of individual warriors are among the most famous parts of this famous work, and they tend to affect modern readers’ evaluation of the whole. The argument of this paper is that both Froissart and his contemporary readers, however much they loved colorful stories, and however much they were fascinated by individual achievement, did not lack an appreciation of the realities of war; and that among those realities was the fact that boldness, though necessary, was not sufficient for success. As much as Froissart and his readers prized the dramatic deed of arms, and the virtues of courage and prowess, they were also aware of the role of prudence. Indeed, Froissart’s warriors were often torn between what might seem to be contradictory impulses, between boldness and prudence.
I must begin by admitting that Froissart is a tricky author to evaluate. He has often been criticized for inaccuracy. Further, both his poetry and his Chronicles show him to be a very sophisticated writer, quite capable of playing for effect with the conventions of his genre. Laurence de Looze has recently identified Froissart as a chief practitioner of a type of courtly poetry he identifies as “pseudo-autobiographical.” How far can we trust a writer who is a convicted pseudo-autobiographer?
Yet in regard to the subject of this paper, Froissart is very useful. Froissart’s history strongly appealed to those readers and listeners who were fascinated by the long saga of the wars of England and France. These readers included the very rich and very noble — some of whom subsidized Froissart — but clearly more modest men as well. Froissart showed war, as Contamine said, “as seen by the middling man-at-arms, by the ordinary combatant (whose condition was
nevertheless noble).” His contemporary success derived from his ability to show knights, squires, and good men-at-arms, and those who might be sympathetic to them, a recognizable if perhaps flattering picture of themselves. In particular, Froissart must have been very good at making such warriors sound like themselves to themselves. Therefore, when Froissart showed warriors discussing the proper relationship between boldness and prudence, he was reflecting a real debate, a tension that real men-at-arms of his time had to deal with. If there had been no issue, there would have been no story — and everyone agrees Froissart was a storyteller.
Click here to read this article from Nipissing University
Related Posts
Subscribe to Medievalverse