and stories, without much
unity except the constant purpose of exhibiting the prowess of
knighthood. There is not much indication even of partisanship or
patriotic feeling. Froissart generally gives due meed of praise to the
best knight in every bout, the best battalion in every encounter,
regardless of sides.

The subjects treated are so numerous and disparate that no general
idea of them can be given. They cover the time from 1326 to 1394, and
lead us through England, Scotland, Flanders, Hainault, France, Italy,
Spain, and Northern Africa. Among the most interesting passages are
the story of King Edward's campaign against the Scots; his march
through France; the battle of Crecy; the siege of Calais; Wat Tyler's
Rebellion, which Froissart the well-fed parasite treats with an odd
and inconsistent mingling of horror and contempt; the Jacquerie, which
he says was the work of peasant dogs, the scum of the earth; the
battle of Poitiers, with a fine description of the Black Prince
waiting at table on poor captured King Jean; and the rise and fall of
Philip van Artevelde.

Froissart's chronicle used to be regarded as authoritative history.
But as might have been expected from his mode of inquiry, it is full
of geographical, chronological, and other errors. Getting his
information by ear, he wrote proper names phonetically, or turned them
into something resembling French. Thus Worcester becomes "Vaucestre,"
Seymour "Simon," Sutherland "Surlant," Walter Tyler "Vautre Tuilier,"
Edinburgh "Hedaimbourch," Stirling "Eturmelin." The persons from whom
he got his material were generally partisans either of France or of
England, and often told him their stories years after the events; so
that although he tried to be impartial himself, and to offset one
witness by another, he seldom heard a judicial account of a battle or
a quarrel. He seems to have consulted few written records, though he
might easily have seen the State papers of England and Hainault.

It is useless to blame him, however; for the writing of mere history
was not his purpose. With all his fine devotion to his life work,--a
devotion which is the more admirable when we consider his
pleasure-loving nature,--with all his attention to fairness, his great
concern was not so much to instruct as to delight, first himself,
secondly the great people of his age, and lastly posterity, on whom he
ever and anon cast a shrewd and longing glance. To please his
contemporaries, he s