CRISTO RAUL.ORG

DURUY'S

HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES

BOOK VIII

RIVALRY BETWEEN FRANCE AND ENGLAND. (1066-1453)

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR.

Preliminaries of the Hundred Years War (1328-1337).—Battle of Stays (1340); state of affairs in Brittany.—Crecy (1346), and Calais (1347).— John (1350); Battle of Poitiers ; States General ; The Jacquerie ; Treaty of Bretigny (1360).—Charles V (1364) ; Du Guesclin ; the great Companies in Spain.—The war with the English renewed (1369); New method of warfare.—Wycliffe.—Wat Tyler and the English King Richard II. (1377).—Deposition of Richard II and accession of Henry IV of Lancaster (1399).—Henry V (1413).— France under Charles VI (1380-1422). Popular insurrections.— Insanity of Charles VI (1392); Assassination of the Duke of Orleans (1407); The Armagnacs and the Burgundians.—Henry V reopens the war with the French (1415). Battle of Agincourt.— Henry VI and Charles VII kings of France (1422) ; Joan of Arc (1421-1431).—Treaty of Arras (1435) ; Charles VII at Paris (1436) ; End of the Hundred Years War.

At last two countries, both of which had attained a very high degree of power, were going to meet in one of the longest wars known to history ; one of these countries, France, was now almost entirely united under her king; while the other, England, had become a nation by the alliance of the Norman barons with the Saxon people and also retained a large domain on the continent, namely, Guienne. There was much more of orderly discipline in the feudalism of England than in that of France, because from its very origin it had been organized and held in check by powerful kings, and because it later undertook certain designs against these kings which it steadfastly pursued and in which it did not scorn to receive the assistance of the people. There was less in the feudalism of France, because it was more frivolous in manners and more contemptuous of the people, both from its natural character and from the circumstances in which it was placed. The court of France was the meeting-place of these feudal noble? of a second age—a chivalrous and brilliant nobility, but better adapted to the splendor of tournaments and passages of arms than to a great war. It formed a bold cavalry, and the finest, in Europe, but it was a cavalry unsupported by any infantry, for the footmen of the communes were kept too much in the background and held in too great contempt to be able to take any important part in war: and the foreign infantry, which was hired, fought poorly, as it was ill-treated and little respected. The armies of France were therefore brilliant in their attack, but did not have the endurance necessary to win the final victory. In England, on the contrary, the Saxon archers, who were drilled in the use of the bow from the age of seven years, formed a formidable and respected infantry. They were placed in the front line in battle, and it was through them that the English gained their victories. The nobility of France, which was so vain and so confident in its strength, became much more so after a few advantages gained over the infantry of the communes, when the victory of Mons-en-Puelle, under Philip IV, had effaced the melancholy memory of Courtray. The victory of Cassel, at the beginning of the reign of Philip of Valois, increased this unfortunate confidence of the nobility, which resulted in its ruin and almost in that of France.

We have already spoken of the wealth of Flanders, but we must also mention another characteristic of this country. On this low and moist soil, to drain which a thousand canals had been cut, and among so many cities defended by walls and, still better, by a population accustomed to work at the hardest, and proud of its numbers, strength, and wealth, chivalry had not had a fair field, and there was very little of feudalism in Flanders. Every city had its privileges and it was not prudent to interfere with them, but their Count, Louis of Nevers, belonged to one of the feudal families of France that had little respect for the burgher class. He took it especially ill that these peas­ants should be so rich, while he, their Count, had not enough for the foolish expenditures to which the nobles had already accustomed themselves. When his exactions brought on a revolt, he asked aid from the new king of France, Philip VI, of Valois, a cousin of Charles IV, who had just succeeded to the throne by virtue of the Salic law Philip led a fine army into Flanders, and was accompanied by the king of Bohemia, and several foreign princes. The soldiers of Flanders were utterly defeated near Cassel, and Louis of Nevers was established as count (1328.)

Thus the French nobles thought themselves almost invincible; while the king of France on his side was powerful, and seemed by wise measures to have removed all possible opposition to his succession. In the first place, he had indemnified one of the pretenders to the throne, Jane of Evreux, by yielding her Navarre and the counties of Angouleme and Mortain, in exchange for which Champagne and Brie were definitively joined to the crown. In the second place he had demanded and received from Edward III, king of England, feudal homage for Guienne. This same Edward, however, was to enter claim to be the rightful heir of the Capetians, as grandson of Philip IV by his mother, and to find in France, and even among the royal family, allies who would open the way for him to the throne.

Robert III of Artois, one of the royal family of France, claimed the county from which he had his name, which was, however, retained by his aunt Mahaut (Matilda or Maud), and by her daughters after her. He was said to have poisoned his aunt and manufactured and used false title deeds against his cousins. When summoned to appear before the court of peers he fled into Brabant and laid the blame on the king himself. To reach a man so well defended as was the king of France by his men of law, he addressed himself to the powers of the other world, to those who, according to the superstitions of the times, received criminal vows, and from whom fortune, worldly success, the pleasures of revenge and the death of an enemy could be obtained—that is, to the Evil One. The art of magic had laid down rules by which to gain the aid of the evil spirits whose legions peopled the lower world; one of these methods was the making of a wax image resembling the person whose death was desired, which was then baptized, and during a mass said for this purpose a needle was thrust into its heart, and this inevitably resulted in the death of the victim if the operation was correctly performed. Robert was accused of using this means against Philip VI, and then fled to England to avoid a punishment which might have rendered the magical ceremony of no effect; once there, he persuaded Edward III to advance his claims to the crown of France.

Before attacking Philip VI in France, Edward III attacked him in England. We have already noticed that Scotland, hostile to England on account of its neighborhood, had been the natural ally of France ever since a Norman prince had reigned at London : just as Flanders was the ally of England because she furnished the latter with the most important market for her wools, which the Flemings employed in their principal industry. Edward III sent Edward Balliol to Scotland against David Bruce, which latter received aid from Philip. Philip ordered Louis of Nevers, who owed to him his power in Flanders, to drive all English merchants from his States. Edward replied to this by a measure which was well adapted to weigh heavily on the Flemings and which indirectly became the source of one of the great industries of England. He forbade the exportation to Flanders of English wools and the use in his kingdom of cloths made in any but the English workshops (1336); immediately the Flemish workshops stood still for want of work and the Flemish workmen crossed the Channel in crowds. This was a final blow to the prosperity of Flanders; and England would have fallen heir to it if James van Artevelde, a weaver of Ghent, had not assembled the deputies of Ghent, Bruges, and Ypres, the three principal centers of Flemish industry, in the first of which alone there were 40,000 workshops, and shown them that “they could not live without the King of England : for the whole prosperity of Flanders was founded on the cloth manufacturing, and without wool no cloth could be made.” The Flemings were convinced, and drove out their count and formed an alliance with England, without, however, renouncing the obedience due to their suzerain, a matter still serious in those times. The neighboring princes to Flanders, who were both interested in her prosperity and hostile.to France, whose power endangered their independence, declared themselves for the king of England. The Emperor Lewis IV did the same. The alliance between the Papacy and France still continued, and this was reason enough for the Emperor to declare himself in favor of Edward: indeed there was a good deal of justice in his conduct, for since the Papacy had been under the king of France, the head of Christendom had been subservient to one of its members; and therefore, very naturally, papal authority seemed a thing of the past, and the Emperor, who had so long contested with the Holy See for the supremacy of Europe, seemed now to be alone worthy of exercising such a power. Lewis IV assembled a diet at Coblentz, at which the king of England and 1700 knights or barons were present, and there promulgated a decree which declared the imperial dignity independent of the Papacy, and the Emperor the chief of the Christian world. He listened to Edward’s complaints and appointed him his vicar in the Netherlands. The Pope in turn issued bulls against this imperial decree, and these two fallen powers hurled their thunderbolts at each other without in the least altering the course of events, thus showing that their weight was of small consequence in the political balance, and that the real preponderance had passed into the hands of France and England.

Open war began in 1339. Edward, entering France near Cambray, penetrated as far as the Oise. This was the time when he first made known his pretended rights to the crown of France, which until then he seemed to have laid aside. The first result obtained by him was his recognition as king of France by the Flemings, who thus succeeded in changing their suzerain without changing the suzerainty. The first great battle was fought at sea (1340). France did not yet possess a navy, but she had gathered from various sources a fleet of 200 vessels. This fleet was poorly commanded and was destroyed by that of Edward at Siuys. Nevertheless the war languished, and after a victory' gained by the French at Saint Omer and the failure of Edward to capture Tournay, it was suspended by a truce (1340). In 1341 the hostilities revived in Brittany, where the two kings each sustained a different candidate for the ducal throne. The duke, John III, had just died, leaving no children, and it was now a question to whom the duchy should descend. There were two candidates, one the daughter of the older of John’s brothers, who had died before him, Jane of Penthievre, who had married Charles of Blois, a nephew of Philip VI, the other his younger brother, John of Montfort. According to strict hereditary right, the Countess of Blois should succeed him, but Montfort invoked the Salic law, that recent invention which had thrown all feudal succession into confusion. The parliament, the nobility, and even Philip of Valois himself, who now opposed the principle by which he had risen to the throne, pronounced in favor of Jane; Montfort, relying on the burgher class and on the Celtic element in Brittany, claimed the support of England. He recognized Edward as king of France and did him homage. A war now broke out in Brittany between the austere and pious Charles of Blois on the one side and on the other Montfort at first, and after he was taken prisoner his wife Jane of Flanders, a dauntless heroine; a war which lasted twenty-four years, was difficult and profitless, with no events except the sieges of different cities and fortresses, and small actions by which the great numbers of nobles who were attracted there by the mil­itary renown of Jane of Montfort distinguished themselves.

One thing that bitterly excited Brittany against the Count of Blois and against France was the cruel execution of fifteen Breton lords who had gone to see the superb festivities which were continually given by the king of France, at the expense of the people whom he taxed heavily, and of the coinage whose standard he altered unceasingly. They had entered into relations with England, a fact which Philip considered reason enough for their execution (1344). Among the victims was one Oliver of Clisson, whose widow took up arms and whose son joined the army of Montfort.

Edward found this a favorable occasion for attack. With Brittany in arms at the west and Flanders at the east, France was flanked by two formidable enemies, and two passages were opened to him into that country without counting that of Guienne. The situation of affairs determined the campaign for 1345. One English army disembarked in Guienne and gained a victory at Auberoche ; another joined Montfort in Brittany, while a third, commanded by Edward himself, turned toward Flanders. Van Artevelde still ruled this country; but not content with having made the Flemings subjects of the English king, he wished to give them another count, the Prince of Wales. An assembly of the deputies of the cities, displeased by the ascendancy of a man who had risen from their midst, excited the people against him, and he died the victim of an insurrection. His enemies, however, cared less for a change in his political system than for the satisfaction of their personal jealousy, and after his death they sent ambassadors to the king of England to renew and strengthen the alliance that had been concluded.

Edward prepared a great armament for the year 1346. A French exile, Godfrey of Harcourt, advised him to make his landing in Normandy, which he devastated. He ascended the Seine with the purpose of menacing Paris, when a lack of supplies obliged him to change his direction, to march toward Flanders, whose soldiers, he learned, were coming to meet him. His army might have been destroyed when crossing the Somme, but he was allowed to establish himself strongly at Crécy, where the skill of the English archers and the rashness of the French nobles made a complete victory easy for him. On the French side there was a loss of n princes, 2 archbishops, 80 barons, 1200 knights, and 30,000 soldiers (1346). This victory did not open the whole of France to the English, but it placed Calais, the key to the country, in their hands. It was taken after a long siege, which was made famous by the devotion of Eustace of St. Pierre.

France was defeated at every point. In Scotland David Bruce had been taken prisoner at Neville’s Cross (1346); in Brittany,Charles of Blois met the same fate at Roche-Darrien (1347), and last but not least a great natural calamity was added to these other reverses : namely, the Black Death or Florentine plague, “from which a third part of the world died.” In the midst of so many misfortunes, however, the crown still continued to gain power. In 1349, Philip VI bought the seignory of Montpellier from the King of Majorca, and in the same year he gained the dauphine of Viennois, which was ceded to him by the dauphin Humbert II. Since then it has been the custom to attribute this sovereignty, with the title of Dauphin, to the oldest son of the king of France.

Philip VI was succeeded by John (1350), who began his wretched reign by committing many acts of violence; he had the constable of Eu, whom he accused battle of wishing to deliver over the fortress under his charge to the king of England, executed without a trial. Charles the Bad, king of Navarre, who through his mother Jane had some pretensions to the throne of France, followed the royal example. He had the constable of Cerda assassinated, to whom John had given Angouleme, to which he laid claim, and then took refuge with Edward, who made in 1355 a campaign in Artois, while the Prince of Wales was ravaging the provinces bounding on Guienne.

When the States-General were convoked to ward off these dangers they raised pretensions such as were unheard of until then. They granted 36,000 men-at-arms (about 100,000 men) and five millions of livres, proving that they were actuated by patriotic motives, but they demanded, in return, concessions which recall the Magna Charta of England: the right of administering by receivers, appointed by and answerable to the Assembly, the five millions which they granted; the establishment of a tax on all three orders alike; the abolition of the droit de prise, and the right of resisting by force all who attempted to exercise that right; the necessary intervention of the States-General in matters of war and peace ; and finally a date was fixed for the meeting of the Estates in the following year. The nobles did not easily resign themselves to these encroachments on their privileges, and especially to the extension of the tax to their order. Several of the barons, with Charles of Navarre at their head, opposed the levying of this tax on their lands. One day when the Dauphin Charles, then Duke of Normandy, had invited the king of Navarre and his friends to a banquet, John having learned the hour, came to Rouen and surprised and arrested them himself at the table of his son. In spite of the prayers and tears of the young prince, who seemed to have deliberately enticed the victims into a trap, John had the king of Navarre thrown into prison and had the Count of Harcourt and several others executed.

This act of violence seemed to Edward to give him a favorable opportunity for action. He sent into Normandy an army commanded by the Duke of Lancaster, which was repulsed. In Guienne, the Prince of Wales, or the Black Prince (called so from the color of his armor), penetrated by the Limousin “into the good and fertile country of Berry,” advanced as far as Vierzon, and then turned toward Poitiers. He had only 2000 knights, 4000 archers, and 2000 foot soldiers with him, and King John was there with an army of 50,000 men ; but the battle was fought with the same result as at Crécy. The king fought better, but was taken prisoner, a good part, of the nobles who were with him fell like him into the hands of the English, and eleven thousand men were slain on the field of battle, “a loss by which the noble kingdom was severely weakened.”

With the king a captive, and the nobles either prisoners or killed, the salvation of France depended on the people, and this younger son, an outcast from the political family of the Middle Ages, now took in hand the government of the kingdom, which had been thrown into confusion by the incapacity of his elder brothers. It was not the people who had been beaten at Crécy and Poitiers. These reverses, on the contrary, had raised their position, for it was evident that they would not have done worse than the nobles, notwithstanding the contempt in which they were held, and that perhaps they would have encountered the English archers with better success than did the knights. It was a new and extraordinary thing for the people to rule. Nevertheless they, or at least their leaders, were not entirely inexperienced in the direction of affairs. Their previous progress had prepared them in some sort. The commoners had been admitted to the Parliament, the Church, and the Universities; they controlled all Commerce and formed great industrial corporations. The lawyers and the merchant class, who were soon to become the aristocracy of the third estate, each supplied a leader to the people after the battle of Poitiers : Robert le Coq, bishop of Laon, and president of the parliament ; and Etienne Marcel, provost of the merchants of Paris.

On the arrival of the news of the disaster, the first care of Marcel was to complete the fortifications of the city, to provide them with cannon, and to barricade the streets. The young Dauphin Charles soon arrived, but little reliance was placed on him; his conduct at Poitiers had been very equivocal, and he had been one of the first to retreat. Charles convoked the States General for the langue d’oil at Paris, for the langue d’oc at Toulouse ; 800 deputies, of which 400 came from the cities, assembled at Paris. Marcel presided over the third estate, Robert le Coq over the clergy. The nobility had but a small representation, and was led by John of Pecquigny, lord of Vermandois and friend of the king of Navarre. The three orders deliberated separately, but in order to attain more unity of action they appointed a mixed commission of eighty members. This commission formulated the will of the Estates and demanded the reform of the kingdom; the dismissal, and trial before judges named by the Estates, of the king’s principal officers of finance and justice, who were accused of committing malversation and of selling their sentences; the release of the king of Navarre; and the establishment of a council of four prelates, twelve lords and twelve commoners to be elected by the States, without which the Dauphin could do nothing and which should control the whole government. On this condition they granted the Dauphin for a year one-tenth and a half of the revenues of the three orders. By these revolutionary claims the people were in reality taking their place on the throne and assuming the direction of public affairs and the public weal. The Estates of the langue d’oc showed themselves less inclined to innovation, and merely voted 15,000 men and the money necessary to support them.

The Dauphin was by no means willing to agree to such conditions. He skillfully outwitted the deputies of the third estate by persuading them to consult their constituents again, while he himself went to seek aid of his uncle the German emperor, Charles IV, who was at that time publishing his famous Golden Bull in the diet of Nuremberg. The Dauphin went as far as Metz, hoping on his return to find the deputies discouraged and dispersed. On the contrary the provincial estates had assembled and approved the measures of the States General, and the whole country indorsed them to the full (1357). On March 3, the Dauphin was obliged to convoke a general assembly at the palace. The bishop of Laon was the spokesman. He asked the prince to remove from his service twenty-two of his councillors or servitors and to authorize the formation of a council of thirty-six members, elected by the Estates, “to regulate the needs of the kingdom, and whom all the world should be required to obey.” Commissioners were to be sent into all the provinces ; and finally the Estates obtained the power of watching over this government created by them, by procuring the right to assemble twice in the year, without convocation. As to the reforms, which mainly related to the finances and to the administration of justice, the Dauphin provided for them by the “Great Ordinance of Reform.” In this memorable charter be promised never to establish a tax unless voted by the Estates, to divert nothing from the treasury, to leave the raising and the use of the taxes to the delegates of the Estates, to administer justice promptly and impartially, no longer to sell the judicial offices, and not to change the standard of the coinage, for which the provost of the merchants was to furnish a model. The ordinance also reformed the following abuses: the droit de prise, forced loans, judgment by commission, and the alienation of the crown domains; and also declared all the members of the Estates inviolable and authorized armed resistance to any illegal encroachment.

The popular government of 1357 had unfortunately neither the strength, harmony, nor experience to preserve the important gains which the people had just made. At all events, its situation was exceedingly unfavorable; its credit was shaken by King John, who, from his prison, forbade the Estates to assemble and the people to pay the taxes voted by them. The country was in the most deplorable state. The peasants were overwhelmed with taxes and with heavy ransoms for their captive lords, which were exacted from them with torture, and were no longer able to cultivate the ground, which had moreover been ravaged by the previous military expeditions. They relapsed into a state of vagabondism, and preferred to be the accomplices rather than the victims of the disbanded soldiers of all countries who had been left in France by the end of the war. The Dauphin felt strong enough to declare that he would no longer have any guardians. This was a complete rupture with the Estates, and a resumption of absolute power by the crown.

The people of Paris summoned Charles of Navarre, who had been released from prison, against the Dauphin. This ambitious, clever, and eloquent prince made himself the orator of the populace, and solemnly harangued or “preached” to a large concourse of people, promising to defend the country, and mentioning the fact that he had some claim to the crown of France himself. The Dauphin hoped to counterbalance this new influence by the same means.. And as if by a stroke of magic, Paris was suddenly, in the midst of the Middle Ages, adorned with two forums. The Dauphin, however, lost all he might have gained, by his unfortunate changes in the coinage, though, to be sure, it was the only possible means of procuring any money without convoking the estates. Marcel at once armed the citizens, and gave them, as a sort of uniform, caps which were half red and half blue. At the head of a company of these men he penetrated into the palace of the Dauphin, had his two principal officers, the marshals of Champagne and of Normandy, killed, and placing a Parisian cap upon the prince’s head to insure his safety, said to him, while the two bodies were thrown out to the crowd : “I require you, on the part of the people, to ratify the death of these traitors, for they died by the will of the people”. He should have said, by the will of a small part of the people, by the will of the Paris bourgeoisie (1358).

In fact, the farther it advanced, the more did this revolution lose its general character; the ardor of the deputies from the provinces, far removed from their constituents, became chilled, while the commune of Paris, always in the midst of things, without even leaving its own hearth, retained its numbers, its zeal, and its popularity. The Estates, jealous of the influence of the commune, consented to be removed to Compiegne by the Dauphin. The nobles rallied around the prince. He had 700 lances, and with these he lived at his pleasure off the country between the Seine and the Marne, ravaging it as far as Paris, which latter suffered greatly from want of food. A more frightful spectacle had never been seen: the peasants, ruined by the English, by the freebooters, and by their own lords whose ransoms they were obliged to pay, assembled and marched about in bands, under the name of Jacques, and led by a king of their own making, William Callet by name. In Champagne, in Picardy there were more than 100,000 of them. They were animated with a bitter hatred of the nobles, and considered themselves called upon to destroy them utterly. They pillaged the castles, killed the nobles, and outraged ladies of the highest rank. They were finally attacked on all sides, and 7000 were killed at Meaux. This great peasant insurrection was drowned in blood. This acted like a blow aimed at Marcel, and discord began to appear in the commune. The provost of the merchants, obliged to seek help elsewhere, summoned the king of Navarre, promising to help him to the throne of France. However, many of the Parisians were tired of the revolutionary rule and would not take up arms against the Dauphin. During the night of July 13, 1358, while Marcel was changing the watch at the gate of Saint Denis, through which Charles of Navarre was to enter, he was massacred with those who were with him, by the sheriff Maillard who had discovered the conspiracy. The Dauphin returned to Paris with an army, and had the principal supporters of Marcel either beheaded or exiled.

France was none the better for this turn of affairs. However, peace began to be talked of. The Dauphin first succeeded in calming Charles of Navarre by the treaty of Pontoise, and John, tired of captivity, consented to enter into negotiations with Edward; but under very unfavorable conditions. He was to cede the half, and the better half, of his kingdom, including the mouths of all the rivers; besides this he was to pay a ransom of four million gold crowns. The Dauphin saw that this meant utter ruin to France, and to meet this great danger, consented to assemble the Estates. Very few deputies, came but those who came were full of patriotism. “ After the letters from the king had been read and re-read, listened to with attention and well understood, and considered and examined point by point, they decided that the terms of the treaty were too severe, and replied with one voice to the messengers that they would rather bear and endure the great misfortunes from which they were then suffering than allow the noble kingdom of France to be diminished and defrauded: that the King John should still remain in England, and when it pleased God he would provide the remedy for their troubles.” Edward III immediately took up arms again and landed at Calais with a large army, followed by an enormous train. He hoped to have a chance to fight, but none was given him. A new system of defense was adopted in France: it was to avoid all open battles, and to let the invasion wear itself out. The Dauphin stayed at Paris, and after six months of marches and of fruitless provocations Edward arrived at Chartres with an army which was decimated by famine. A violent storm made their plight even worse, and the King of England, stretching out his arms toward the cathedral, vowed to God and to the Holy Virgin that he would no longer oppose a peace. The treaty of Bretigny was concluded (1360), the terms of which were disastrous enough to France, but acceptable considering her utter poverty and the reverses she had sustained. Edward renounced all claim to the crown of France, and received in direct sovereignty Poitou, Aunis, the Angoumois, Saintonge, the Limousin, Perigord, Quercy, Rouergue, the Agénois and Bigorre in the south, and Ponthieu, Calais, and Guines in the north. The ransom of the king was fixed at three millions of gold crowns payable in six years (that is, nearly fifty million dollars).

An occasion soon offered to make good part of these losses. The first ducal house of Burgundy became extinct in 1361, and this great fief fell to the crown. John showed as little wisdom in his peace as in his war policy, and immediately bestowed Burgundy on his fourth son, Philip the Bold, who had fought bravely at Poitiers. This Philip was the founder of the second house of Burgundy, which twice almost ruined France.

John died in 1364, a prisoner again, but this time by his own will and through a chivalrous loyalty, which was made much more easy than the self-sacrifice of Regulus by the gay life and festivities of the English court.

The reign of Charles V was one of reparation and, as it were, a season of convalescence for the sick and ruined kingdom of France. Three great evils, which were left untouched by the treaties, and were established in the heart of the country, still remained to be cured.

The king of Navarre and the free companies were together one of these evils. Charles the Bad had gained control of some of those heterogeneous bands of adventurers, which had recently destroyed a feudal army at Brignais, and appointed over them the Captal de Buch, a Gascon adventurer.

Charles V found an adversary worthy of these men and their leader, an adventurer as bold and even more clever, a Breton gentleman, who as a child had been the despair of his parents on account of his ugliness, his deformity, and his evil disposition, and who had continually come to blows with his brothers, comrades, and masters, and who had consequently always been covered with bruises and wounds. His mother said:“ His father and I would gladly have seen him buried.” This quarrelsome little boy became at fifteen a bold tilter, lance in hand, and it was not long before he made the name of Du Guesclin, later so famous, feared throughout his country. With other brave companions at Cocherel, he defeated the adventurers of the Captal de Buch, and took the latter prisoner (1364). The following year the king of Navarre was obliged to sign a treaty by which he gave up his strong places in the basin of the Seine, Mantes, Meulan, and Longueville, which in his hands had proved too dangerous to the peace of France, and received in exchange the seignory of Montpellier. There he was at least out of reach of the English.

The war still continued in Brittany, and Charles sent Du Guesclin thither to crush the English party. But the Breton was less fortunate in his own country, as there he was not supreme in command. Charles of Blois, the head of the French party, would not follow his advice, and was killed at Auray, where Du Guesclin was taken prisoner. Charles at once opened negotiations, and consented to the treaty of Guérande, by which Jane of Blois had the county of Penthièvre and John IV of Montfort the duchy for which he paid homage to the king.

The battle of Cocherel, however, had not entirely done away with the free companies: there was still much bad blood to be let in France, and a good opportunity was now offered in Spain. Charles V wished to sustain Henry of Transtamara against Peter the Cruel in his claims to the throne of Castile. Du Guesclin, who had been ransomed by Charles V, pointed out to these brigands the beauty of the country beyond the Pyrenees and of Avignon, the rich pontifical city on the way thither. Thirty thousand Basques, Bretons, Lorrainers, Brabançons, Provençals, French and English, arrived at the city of the Pope, calling themselves, “Pilgrims of God, who had devoutly undertaken to go to Grenada to avenge Our Lord,” and who for this pious project demanded 200,000 livres and absolution from their sins. The Pope granted their requests, glad enough to see them pass by Avignon, which he had feared would be sacked. Du Guesclin brought victory to the cause of Henry of Transtamara; but as soon as all the booty had been collected, his men, whom he had until then succeeded in retaining, disbanded and recrossed the Alps, only two thousand remaining with him. The Prince of Wales, who kept up a splendid court at Bordeaux, could not allow a revolution to take place which would make Castile with her fleet an ally of France. He collected an army in which were many of the adventurers who had just returned from Spain, and forcing an engagement on Henry of Transtamara defeated him in the battle of Najara or Navarette (1367), and took Du Guesclin prisoner. But the Prince of Wales soon returned to France, Du Guesclin was ransomed, went back to Spain, and speedily gained the battle of Montiel, and Henry and the French party were re-established in Castile.

The establishment of a dynasty favorable to France in Castile was a great advantage, but a still greater one was the removal of the free companies from the country. After their departure precautions had been taken to prevent the formation of any other such companies; the forts were put in order, and patrols were organized by the peasants with authorization of the king. Order was restored in the kingdom; the salt tax (gabelle) was diminished one half and the aids one quarter on condition that the money so obtained should be used by the citizens in fortifying their cities. Charles V had given the government of the two provinces Languedoc and Auvergne to his brothers the dukes of Anjou and Berry (not in fiefs as formerly), so that these two countries, which adjoined the English possessions, were no longer subject to continual incitements to revolt, and “the king of France had friends on every side.” He renewed the old and valuable alliance with Scotland, arranged a marriage between his brother and the heiress of Flanders, and gained the friendship of the king of Navarre as he already had done of the king of Castile. At the same time he was raising new troops. The man who was to lead them to victory had been released from his prison. He is said to have spoken thus to the Prince of Wales : “My lord, it is said throughout the kingdom of France and elsewhere that you are so afraid of me that you dare not release me from prison.” The Black Prince was piqued by this, and allowed him to fix his own ransom. “ I will fix it at 100,000 florins, my lord, and do not be surprised at the amount, There is not a woman in my country who would not be willing to join in raising my ransom, and at all events my ransom will be paid by one who does not expect to do so.” Everything in France was now ready for war. The Prince of Wales, on the contrary, had been ill ever since his expedition into Spain, and, disliked by the Aquitanians on account of his melancholy and cruelty, was unable to procure any subsidy from them. Charles thought that the moment for action had come at last. He complained that the treaty of Bretigny had been violated, which was indeed the case, as on his return from Spain the Black Prince, unable to pay his adventurers, had sent them to pay themselves off the territory of France; he also complained of the oppression of Aquitaine and Gascony, from which provinces many of the nobles had come to demand justice of him. He finally summoned the English prince to appear before his court of peers. The Black Prince replied: “I will come, but with my helmet on my head and 60,000 men in my company.”

The English landed at Calais, and a great army under the Duke of Burgundy went to meet them, but refused all encounter with them and withdrew as they the advanced. The cities were well fortified and defended, and the English were unable to take a single one. Their expedition only resulted in their ravaging the country without gaining any advantage. They returned in 1370; and the same system of defense was used against them, and though they went as far as Rheims and Paris no action took place. From his palace of Saint-Pol the king could see the villages as they were set on fire; but the wise Clisson said: “Sire, there is no need of your employing your people against these madmen ; leave them to tire themselves out. With all this smoke they will not drive you from your inheritance.”

“ There never was a king of France who fought less, and there never was a king who gave me so much to do,” said Edward III. The Black Prince himself took the field, but was not more successful. He sacked Limoges, but this was his last exploit (1370). He languished a few years longer, and then returned to England to die (1376).

The French were wise enough to avoid all battles with great armies ; but between these English expeditions, Charles willingly allowed his knights to strike a few blows with their spears, especially his brave Du Guesclin, whom he had recalled from Spain to make him his constable. The povre chevalier wished to refuse this high office, but the king replied: “Messire Bertrand, do not refuse, for I have neither brother, cousin, nephew, count, or baron in my kingdom who shall not obey you, and if anyone should not do so he will soon know how angry he has made me.” Does not this sound a little like Louis XI? Du Guesclin began by defeating the men of Robert Knoll, an adventurer in the service of the English, and pursued them into Brittany, where the duke was an ally of Edward’s and for that reason disliked by the Bretons. The Bretons, indeed, since Du Guesclin and Clisson had been held in such favor at court, and, thanks to the skillful maneuvers of the king, who never lost an occasion, to flatter them, had become French at heart. They closed their fortresses against the English and opened them to Du Guesclin. In a very short time John of Montfort was deposed, and only Brest was left in Edward’s hands. During the same time the Castilian admiral Boccanegra captured an English fleet off Rochelle. This city, which was French at heart, and the commercial rival of the English city of Bordeaux, also freed itself from the foreign yoke (1372). The clergy and the citizens everywhere called the French to their aid. Poitiers, Angouleme, and Saintes drove out their English garrisons, and Du Guesclin utterly destroyed the remnants of these garrisons at Chizey in Poitou (1373). After that time no territory north of the Gironde was left in the possession of the English.

Nevertheless these stubborn foes reappeared in 1373. The Duke of Lancaster landed at Calais with 30,000 men and expected to conquer France; he only succeeded in marching across it. His journey was comfortable as long as he stayed in the rich provinces of the north ; as soon as he reached the poor and barren country at the center his army began to suffer from privations and disease. In Auvergne he had not a single horse left; at Bordeaux he had only 6000 men, and knights and soldiers alike begged their bread from door to door.

The English were at last disgusted with this kind of war. They did not return the following year, and in 1375 demanded a truce, which lasted till the death of Edward III in 1377. Charles then broke the truce and struck blow after blow. He brought five armies into the field and conquered the whole of Guienne, while a Castilian fleet, manned by French troops, devastated the coasts of Kent and Sussex. By 1380 the English only possessed Bayonne, Bordeaux, Brest, Cherbourg, and Calais on the continent.

This was a propitious moment for France to have done with Charles the Bad and his intrigues. Under the pretext of a conspiracy against the lives of the royal family of France, Charles V had two of his ministers executed and his two sons arrested. The Duke of Anjou conquered the seignory of Montpellier, Du Guesclin the county of Evreux, and the king of Castile the kingdom of Navarre. He did not recover his kingdom till 1379, when he delivered up twenty of his strong places as a pledge of peace.

Charles tried to accomplish the same work in Brittany as in Guienne. He summoned the duke, John, to appear on June 20, 1378, before the court of peers, and when the duke did not appear his fief was declared to have fallen to the royal domain. The Gascons had already given themselves to France. The Bretons, however, would not allow themselves to be conquered. Barons, knights, and squires signed at Rennes on April 26, 1379, an act of confedera­tion, which was subscribed also by the burghers, and John of Montfort, whom they had driven from the country, was recalled. All the Bretons in the service of the king of France, and there were a great many, threw up their places. Even those who had first promised him to second his projects now turned against him. Du Guesclin, now an old man, sent him back his constable’s sword, and on March 1, 1380, a treaty of alliance was signed at Westminster between England and Brittany. An English army landed again at Calais, led by the Earl of Buckingham, and traversed the whole of the north of France with impunity. He had not reached Brittany, where he was aiming, when Charles V died at Vincennes on September 16, 1380. Du Guesclin had preceded him to the grave by two months. A new truce, concluded soon after, put an end to the first period of the Hundred Years War.

The first period of the Hundred Years War came to an end with the death of Charles V. The scene now shifted. France, which had been a partly conquered country, was again mistress of herself, and each of the two belligerent nations returned into its natural sphere of activity. The principal actors had disappeared: Philip VI, John and Charles V in France, and Edward III and the Black Prince, in England. Richard II, son of the Black Prince, came to the English throne in 1377 at eleven years of age, and Charles VI in 1380 to the French throne at twelve years of age. During the minorities of these princes, France and England both fell a prey to internal disturbances. They were both stirred up by a sort of effervescence which brought out the ideas produced by the general pro­gress of civilization. The emancipation of thought and the emancipation of the people, the characteristics we have already noticed of the age, continued to be advanced at the end of the fourteenth century, though by tumultuous and violent means.      '

In England an organized parliament, the condition of industry stimulated by the introduction of the Flemish workmen, and the frequent disregard of the authority of the Holy See, all prepared the way for some popular movement, and gave it both a political and a religious character. In 1366 there were thirty-three years of arrears due of the annual tribute of 1000 marks which John Lackland had promised to pay to the Holy See. When Urban V. demanded payment, a public act of the king, lords, and commons declared that no one had a right to make the kingdom subject to any foreign power. Fifteen years before, other statutes had been passed which reserved exclusively to the king the gift of certain benefices and impaired the jurisdiction of Rome.

In this resistance to the Holy See, an English monk, John Wycliffe, was especially prominent and defended the rights of the crown against the pontifical pretensions. After once attacking the Papacy in behalf of national independence, he attacked it also in behalf of evangelical equality, and wished to undermine the whole Catholic hierarchy by recognizing neither Pope, archbishop, or bishop, as superior to the simple priests. He wished to forbid all temporal possessions to the clergy, and even to make the spiritual power of the priests dependent on their good or bad conduct; and finally he even dared to attack the dogmas of the Church and denied transubstantiation in the Eucharist, the necessity of confession and baptism, and the value of a religious ceremony in marriage, etc. One of his acts which bore the most important consequences was the translation of the Bible into English, and by this means the admission of all to the reading and interpretation of the holy books. A certain Lollard, who was burned at Cologne by the inquisition in 1322, had already preceded Wycliffe on this path, and it was by his name that the people who adopted these ideas, and who mainly lived in the country, were called. Some of Wycliffe’s disciples extended his ideas into the region of politics and one of the most famous of these was John Ball. A foolish priest in Kent, named John Ball, had preached to the peasants that at the beginning of the world there were no slaves, and that therefore no one could be reduced to slavery unless he had betrayed his lord as Lucifer betrayed God. They were neither angels nor demons, but men created in the image of their Lord. Why then should they be treated like beasts ? Why, if they worked, should they not be paid for it ?

“ When Adam delved and Eve span,

Who was then the gentleman ? ”

The explosion of these ferments was finally provoked by one of those violent acts which have stirred up so many revolutions. A collector of taxes insulted the daughter of a blacksmith, Wat Tyler, who stretched him at his feet with a blow from his hammer. All the villeins of Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Sussex, and other counties rallied at the call of the men of Kent and declared that they would no longer be slaves. Sixty thousand assembled at the gates of London on Blackheath (1381), entered the city, took the tower and put to death the chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as an oppressor of the people. Their demands were, however, moderate; they required the abolition of serfdom, the liberty to buy and sell in the fairs and markets, a general amnesty, and, what was less reasonable, the reduction of rents to a uniform rate. The king had an interview with Wat Tyler at Smithfield. The blacksmith seems to have played with his dagger rather proudly and to have been about to seize the bridle of the king’s horse, when the lord mayor, fearing a hostile design, plunged his sword into his breast. This death disconcerted the rebels momentarily. The young King Richard II seized this opportunity and urging his horse into the midst of them, said: “My friends, now that Wat Tyler is dead you have no longer any leader but me.” These words from a king of fifteen years filled the people with enthusiasm, and they cried out, “Long live King Richard!” and received charters of emancipation sealed with the royal seal. They had hardly dispersed, however, before the promises were disregarded. John Ball and 1500 of his followers were executed, and Wycliffe was summoned before a council and forced to retract his previous statements. But this work was not wholly in vain, and was later of assis­tance to the reformation.

After an unsuccessful military expedition against the Scotch in 1385, who were sustained by the French, new troubles of a different character broke out in England. Richard demanded from Parliament subsidies to resist a projected invasion by the French : it was replied to him that he had only to make his favorites disgorge, and he would have money enough to raise an army. He threatened and inveighed, and said he would seek a reconciliation with the king of France and arrange with him to punish his rebellious subjects; but the parliament was firm, for it was supported by the uncles of the king and all the nobility of the kingdom. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, was then in Spain trying vainly to enforce his claims to the crown of Castile, to which he pretended to, have a right : the other two, the dukes of York and Gloucester, and especially the latter, who was very popular, put themselves at the head of the formidable opposition formed against the two favorites of the king, Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, and Michael de la Pole, the chancellor. The latter was impeached by the lords and condemned to the loss of his office. The parliament of 1386 went even farther, and instituted a commission of government composed of creatures of the Duke of Gloucester, and when the king tried to get rid of them the duke took up arms, defeated the royal troops, and had the ministers of the king condemned to death, and two of them were executed (1388).

An energetic step seems to have saved the king a second time. In 1389 he dismissed his council, declaring that he no longer needed any guardians, and by flattering the Duke of Lancaster was able to restrain the turbulent Duke of Gloucester. But his foolish prodigalities and his violence revived the spirit of faction and the legitimate fears of England. He could no longer borrow any money. The city of London had refused him a loan of a thousand pounds sterling. He obtained the money he used for his pleasures from gratuitous or really forced gifts. A contemporary says of him : “There was not a single lord, prelate, gentleman, or rich citizen who had not been forced to lend the king some money, which they well knew he would neither wish nor be able to repay.” Surrounded by a guard of 10,000 archers, he ruled without a thought of the laws of the kingdom.

For several years matters went on in this way, and in 1397 Richard thought himself strong enough to get rid of Gloucester. He sought him out on one of his estates, invited him to accompany him to London on some pressing business, and had him kidnapped on the way thither, thrown into a vessel and carried to Calais, where one night he was smothered between two mattresses. It was given out that he had died suddenly. The Earl of Arundel was executed, the Earl of Warwick exiled to the Isle of Man, and the Archbishop of Canterbury condemned to banishment.

Richard believed that he had now avenged his long years of humiliation, and had succeeded in assuming his power. One man, however, still caused him some anxiety; Henry of Bolingbroke, son of the Duke of Lancaster, and him he banished. On the death of his father (1399) he did not allow the son to receive his inheritance, and appropriated the lands of this wealthy house.

But Henry, on being banished and despoiled, did not remain inactive. He formed a conspiracy at Paris, and acted in concert with the principal peers of England. Three frail vessels carried him and his men to Ravenspur, near the mouth of the Humber. Here he was joined by his uncle, the Duke of York, and by the earls of Westmoreland and Northumberland, and succeeded in entering London and occupying almost the whole country before Richard, who was then suppressing a rebellion in Ireland, had even heard of his arrival. When the wretched king arrived in England every one had abandoned him. He fell into the hands of Lancaster, and a deputation of the lords and commons forced him to read the following declaration in a loud voice: “I confess and acknowledge, according to my inmost thoughts, and declare in conscience that I consider myself to have been and still to be incapable of governing this kingdom, and that my notorious faults make me worthy of deposition.” The parliament drew up a bill of impeachment in thirty-three articles, in which he was accused of unjust revenge and of violation of the laws and privileges of the nation, and his deposition was pronounced. Then Henry of Lancaster rose and said: “In the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I, Henry of Lancaster, challenge this realm of England and the crown with all the members and the appurtenances, as that I am descended by right line of the blood from the good King Henry III, and through that right that God by his grace hath sent me, with the help of kin and of my friends to recover it, the which realm was in point to be undone by default of governance and undoing of good laws.” Henry of Lancaster thus established his right on the double foundation of heredity and of public weal. He was recognized as king under the name of Henry IV. (1399).

When Henry IV usurped the crown he not only passed over Richard II. but also over the descendants of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the third son of Edward III, to whom the throne should legitimately have fallen. The wars of the Roses were the result of this usurpation. The head of the house of Lancaster spent all his reign in strengthening his dynasty, and to do this he recognized the rights of Parliament, that he might put his reliance upon it. In spite of this wise policy of the first Lancaster, who contributed greatly to the establishment of the parliamentary rule in England, he had to contend against various revolts. The first of these, which was in behalf of the deposed king Richard II, was successfully quelled and he died, as it was believed, assassinated in his prison (1400); but another more formidable one was carried on by the Welsh. A lord of Wales, Owen Glendower, in consequence of a decision against him by the English parliament in a lawsuit, forcibly kidnapped the Anglo-Norman lord with whom he was at law. This was the signal for an insurrection, which was stirred up by the bards, who had been persecuted for a long time. The Welsh found allies in the two Percys, the sons of the Earl of Northumberland, who had been offended by Henry IV. This formidable insurrection was ended in the king’s favor by the victory of Shrewsbury (1403), but the country of Wales was only gradually subdued. Nevertheless the victor, after a very disturbed reign, realized that great foreign expeditions would be the only means of assuaging the spirit of revolt of the barons, and that great victories alone could command their respect. Shakespeare represents him on his death-bed as advising his son, in noble words, to resume the war with France in order to renew the laurels of Crécy and Poitiers to the glory of the house of Lancaster. He was worthy of this homage of the king of English poets, from his own and his father’s friendship for the first great poet of England, Geoffrey Chaucer.

The son to whom Henry IV bequeathed the task of making these conquests was a singular kind of prince. At twenty-five years of age he was no better than the worst subject of the kingdom he was going to govern. His intimate friends were a few dissipated nobles who were deeply in debt,—Falstaff is a remarkable type of them,—and he even associated with highway robbers and passed his life in debauchery and brigandage. Not that his character was naturally disposed to these coarse vices, but he plunged into them out of English eccentricity and for a pastime. When his father died he changed completely; the frequenter of taverns and the breaker of doors became a wise, grave, severe, and devout king. He heaped favors upon William Gascoigne, a judge who had once sent him to prison ;  he showed great clemency and paid fitting honors to the remains of Richard II, and after having made peace with the public opinion by this good beginning, he declared that he would cross over to France as soon as an opportunity offered for an English attack.

France had had a minor as king at the same time with England. But in England this minority ended when Richard II grew up, while in France the king had passed from one childhood into another. Of all eras of the history of France this one is the saddest and most wretched. At other times there has been as much and more bloodshed, but never this extraordinary and memorable spectacle of a madman upon the throne. There was discord in the religious orders, for the Babylonian captivity had only ended by giving rise to the great schism of the West, and while Urban VI had restored the Papacy to Rome, France recognized Clement VII as Pope at Avignon. In the civil orders there were a thousand elements of dread, which had been held in check by the weak but skillful hand of Charles V, but which now were fermenting and appearing everywhere from the seat of the government to the very heart of the country. The four selfish and greedy uncles of the king, the dukes of Anjou, Berry, Burgundy, and Bourbon (the latter a maternal uncle), wrangled over the public treasury and the taxes, not in order to use them for the good of the state but for their own personal ambitions. The Duke of Berry wished to retain the government of Languedoc in spite of the hatred which had been kindled there by his exactions; the Duke of Anjou seized the royal treasure almost before Charles V. had closed his eyes for the last time, and soon after being invested with the kingdom of Sicily by the Pope at Avignon, went thither to die in the kingdom which he was unable to conquer. During this time the peasants rose in Poitou, the Limousin, and Auvergne, and the great communes of Flanders and of the north of France revolted. In 1382 the people at Paris, irritated by the double taxes imposed by the Duke of Anjou on commerce, armed themselves with mallets and massacred the collectors of the impost. Rouen followed in the steps of Paris, and repeated the action of the Jacquerie by creating themselves a king; a merchant draper became king of Rouen.

These popular movements were no longer isolated as at the beginning of the communal revolution; they were in Close correspondence and were supported by each other.

Ghent was the center of the movement. “All was settled and arranged after the manner of the citizens of Ghent; and the communes throughout the entire world declared that the citizens of Ghent were worthy people, and that they valiantly sustained their liberties, wherefore they should be loved and honored by all men.” Ghent with its 400,000 inhabitants was led by Philip van Artevelde, who was no less celebrated than his father James. The city rose against her Count Louis de Male, who governed the country with cruelty. With 5000 chosen men, Philip defeated the 40,000 men of the count near Bruges, and the latter just escaped being taken prisoner. This success made Philip master of the whole of Flanders, and the fame of it spread far and wide. The nobility were alarmed by the victory of the great commune, and felt the need of combining and striking a blow at the heart of the movement to preserve them­selves from general destruction. The king of France started for the country, followed by all the knights and gentlemen of his kingdom. The English nobility, sacrificing their national interests to their class interests, decided not to help the faithful allies of England, and Artevelde was not able to make a successful defense. He set out with 50,000 men. The war was so terrible that no life was to be spared but that of the king, and he was a child and should be forgiven. These poor people of Flanders wished “to teach him to speak and be Flemish.” But this time the nobles were able to take their revenge at Roosebek. The unwise disposition of the Flemish infantry caused its overthrow; it was an enormously thick mass and perfectly unwieldy; 26,000 men fell, most of whom were crushed to death. Artevelde and the whole battalion of Ghent were left on the field (1382). Flanders was, however, not entirely crushed, and a new insurrection now broke out, this time with the assistance of the English, which brought the king of France back to the country. The death of the Count Louis de Male changed the situation of affairs. In the name of his wife, Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, inherited the counties of Flanders, Artois, Burgundy, Nevers, and Rethel (1384). He received the oath of fealty of the Flemings, and promised in return to respect their liberties. This was an event of great importance, for after this time the Duke of Burgundy, though prince of the blood, was involved by his new subjects in a course hostile to France, and in an alliance with the English.

The battle of' Roosebek had struck a blow not at the Flemings alone, but also at all the rebellious communes of France. The French nobility returned to Paris highly elated by their victory. Thirty thousand Parisians advanced under arms, not to fight them, but to act as a cortege to Charles VI. This act of submission did not disarm the young king, and bloody executions, confiscations, and the abolition of the municipal offices and the corporations signalized the re-establishment of the government of the king. The same course was pursued at Rouen, Chalons, Rheims, Troyes, and Orleans: for this great movement had extended throughout the whole kingdom. Even Toulouse had taken part in it. “ If the king of France had been defeated in Flanders, we can well believe that the whole nobility and gentry would have been destroyed in France and in the other countries as well; the Jacquerie was never so great or so terrible as this insurrection.” Thus Froissart, the historian of the Middle Ages and the great partisan of the feudal nobility, considered the battle of Roosebek to have saved the social order of his times.

This social order was especially distinguished by the absence in its leaders of all national sentiment, by their personal views, their spirit of adventure, their vain and rash expenditure of the public strength, or, in one word, the wasting of the resources of France by a few princes of the blood, who were covetous of foreign kingdoms and cared little or nothing for the prosperity of their own country. In 1386 a great expedition was planned against England, and taxes were laid upon the people which were so heavy that many of the inhabitants were driven from the country. Finally preparations were made on a gigantic scale : 1400 vessels were brought together from all directions, and 20,000 knights, 20,000 cross-bowmen, 20,000 foot-soldiers, and a crowd of adventurers were collected. A city of wood, 3000 feet in diameter, was loaded on 72 vessels piece by piece, and was to be erected on landing on the coast of England. When this was all ready, the Duke of Berry did not appear and the season passed; the expedition did net start, and the Insanity of Charles VI (1392); assassination of the Duke of Orleans (1407); the Armagnacs and the Burgundians army which was to have conquered England ravaged the provinces of the north of France. The same enterprise was undertaken the following year, and with the same result. After this an expedition to Germany was planned against the Duke of Gueldres, an enemy of the new Count of Flanders. The king conducted it himself, and though it consisted of 80,000 men, it all came to nothing. A little later  Louis II of Anjou found his ruin in the kingdom of Naples instead of conquering it; and almost at the same time the French nobility, not content with their defeats at Crecy and Poitiers, went to seek another at Nicopolis, on the banks of the Danube (1396).

To account for this confusion and disorder in the affairs of the kingdom one would naturally assume that the king must have been mad, and this was the case. In 1392, Charles VI was marching into Brittany to avenge the attempted assassination of his constable Clisson, by the lord of Craon, who had taken refuge with the Duke John IV. When crossing the forest of Mans under a hot sun, and heavily dressed, that is, under all the conditions conducive to cerebral congestion for a head which was already weak, he saw a beggar dash at the head of his horse, crying, “Return, you are betrayed!”. The clashing of an iron spear behind him made him think that he was about to be assassinated, and turning he killed four of his suite. He had lost his reason, and during thirty years had only rare intervals of lucidity. The government was disputed by two parties : one was led by the brother of the king, Louis Duke of Orleans, a young and brilliant prince, generous but dissipated, of light morals and contemptuous of the people, though in other respects he was a good Frenchman, a bitter enemy of the English, and an enemy also of the University, the great democratic body, both wise and disputatious, whose sharp and sombre humor could not accord with his character. Opposing him was the Duke of Burgundy, a severe and gloomy man, who was accustomed to flatter the people of Flanders, as he needed them for his financial necessities, and who was impelled by them to sustain the democratic cause everywhere, and was in consequence allied with the citizens of Paris and the University, and by reason of his Flemish interests allied also with the English, The Duke of Orleans had no resources save in the taxes which he imposed upon the people of Paris, in the name of the royal government. The Duke of Burgundy, on the other hand, was rich from his own States, and asked nothing from the Parisians, and would even willingly have forbade their paying anything. This antagonism did not come to open violence until after 1404, when John the Fearless succeeded Philip the Bold. The rivalry then threatened to turn into a civil war in the heart of Paris. Each one assembled his men-at-arms and fortified his hotel with the intention of fighting, but peace was made between them. The hatred, however, was too bitter for this to endure, at least on the part of John the Fearless, who had a less compliant disposition than his cousin. He was at the table with Louis and hypocritically received the sacrament with him, and three days later had him assassinated as he was leaving the king’s palace at eight o’clock in the evening (1407). The citizens of Paris and of Flanders approved of this murder ; John the Fearless owned to it proudly, and found a theologian, John Petit, to write his apology. The king was made to declare that his brother had been justly put out of the world, and Valentine of Milan, who had demanded vengeance for the murder of her husband, died without obtaining it. The power of John the Fearless was confirmed by the bloody victory of Hasbain, where 25,000 citizens of Liege were killed.

This power, however, provoked a reaction. Charles the new Duke of Orleans, and the dukes of Berry, of Bourbon, and of Brittany formed a league together with Bernard VII, Count of Armagnac, the most powerful lord in the South. The young Duke of Orleans married the daughter of Bernard, and the latter by his talents and power became the chief of the party of the Armagnacs (1410). This lord of the Pyrenees was joined by Gascon adventurers who were in search of fortune, and who were filled with hatred of the men of the North, and contempt for the mad king who was revered and pitied by the latter. John opposed these Southerners with a force of Picards, Brabançons and Lorrainers. The king was in the power of the Burgundian faction which controlled Paris ; the other, the real French party, already found its support, as it did later, in the country to the south of the Loire. John the Fearless ruled Paris only by giving it over to demagogy and to the party of the butchers. The head of the faction was the flayer Caboche, its orator the surgeon John of Troyes. These men assumed the cross of Burgundy and dictated their will to the council of the king. Paris recovered her ancient privileges which she had lost in 1382. The Armagnacs were everywhere driven out, pursued and killed like wild beasts. The people of Paris were drawn on to cruelties which the Duke of Burgundy did not dare restrain. He renewed his alliance with the people of Ghent, and showed his intention of extending democracy everywhere. We must also mention as an act of great importance, the Cabochian Ordinance, due mainly to the University, by which, with as much wisdom as boldness, happy reforms were decreed for all departments of the administration of the kingdom. It is needless to say that this ordinance of reformation was abolished almost as soon as it was decreed.

But the excesses of the Cabochian party and the revolutionary state of the city wearied its inhabitants. Nine of the. twelve quarters declared for a compromise with the Armagnacs, who re-entered the city (1413), while the butchers were put to flight. This was a change from one tyranny to another. The Armagnacs, with their aristocratic spirit and their contempt for the people, treated Paris like a conquered city, silenced the University, re-established the old regime, and revived the hatred of the English, which for them was at the same time the hatred of the spirit of liberty by which England was already being inspired. Thus when Richard II was deposed the Duke of Orleans refused to recognize Henry IV. The interests of liberty and the interests of the nation were opposed in France at this time. The latter interests were the most urgent, in order that the country might acquire force and unity. It is this question which was to be debated in the new period of the Hundred Years War, and which was decided by the triumph of the French nationality.

To strengthen his power Henry V needed a war with France, which country, moreover, was now governed by the party which had refused to recognizer the legitimacy of his father Henry IV. He demanded the fulfillment of the treaty of Bretigny and the hand of Catharine, the daughter of Charles VI. When these were refused him he landed at the mouth of the Seine and took Harfleur. An epidemic forced him to change his route and to turn toward Calais as Edward III had done before him. Instead of taking the measures necessary to check his progress the court of France sent after him one of those great feudal armies such as it had so often collected during the century. The army consisted of about 80,000 men. Henry V had only 20,000. A battle was fought at Agincourt, under conditions as unfavorable to the French as those at Crecy. The feet of their horses stuck fast in the deep and heavy mud. Disorder, lack of discipline, and tumult reigned in the French army, order and piety in the English. Henry V pretended to be sent by God to punish “the disorders, excesses, sins and vices which were visible in the kingdom of France.” He was closely allied with the Church and found a great assistance in this alliance. France was still schismatic, and sustained the pope of Avignon against the pope of Rome. Their belief in the mission of their king added to the ordinary coolness of the English. Henry V went about on foot without any state, and ordered everything with calmness. He placed his archers in the front ranks of his army. The Saxon arrows again had a fine field in the masses of horses which could hardly move. When the confusion was sufficient the archers advanced, knife in hand, and set to work to kill the horsemen who had been unhorsed and were encumbered by their armor : 10,000 Frenchmen perished, most of them gentlemen, among them 120 great nobles and 7 princes. The English lost only about 1600 dead. The nobility had never before been weakened by such a terrible wound. This was a third and decisive condemnation of the feudal armies, which were good in a former age, but which henceforth were powerless (1415).

The disaster of Agincourt discredited the government of the Armagnacs, who were only able to maintain themselves in Paris by violent means. In 1418 a conspiracy opened the gates of Paris to the Burgundians; with them the butchers returned, and with the butchers, massacres. The slaughter of the Armagnacs deluged Paris in blood. During twenty-eight hours a butchery of from 1600 to 3000 victims went on in the prisons. The count of Armagnac was among this number, and as Charles of Orleans had been taken prisoner at Agincourt, the Orleans party was left with no other leader than the Dauphin Charles, who separated himself from his father, the king, who had fallen into the hands of the Burgundians. These governed no better than the Armagnacs. If the Armagnacs lost the battle of Agincourt, the Burgundians were to lose Rouen, which, however, did not open its gates till one third of its population had perished. Its leader, Alain Blanchard, was less fortunate than Eustace of Saint Pierre, for his patriotism cost him his head (1419). Thus, through the equal impotence of both the parties which governed her, France was about to fall into the hands of foreigners.

This disaster was precipitated by another assassination. John the Fearless was enticed to an interview on the bridge of Montereau, and was killed there by Tanneguy-Duchatel at the instigation of the dauphin. This indolent young prince, plunged in the pursuit of pleasure, thought by this treacherous crime to become sole master of the government, but exactly the reverse took place. He aroused a feeling of pity for his victim and horror for himself in the minds of the people. The alliance of the Burgundians with the English astonished no one. The Parisians, decimated by a terrible famine, found a pretext for going over to the . English party, which alone could rescue them from misery. “Rather the English, than the Armagnacs,” said they. A century later a Carthusian friar of Dijon showed Francis I the tomb of John the Fearless, saying, “This great wound by means of which the English entered France.” Soon afterwards the treaty of Troyes (1420) was signed, by which , Henry V was recognized as heir of Charles VI, and the dauphin was excluded from the succession. The queen, Isabel of Bavaria, for a pension of 2000 francs a month consented to this treaty, which was hardly a reproach to Philip the Good, who was avenging his father, or to Charles VI, who did not know what he was doing, but doubly so to her, the unnatural mother who could write the following words: “The so-called dauphin of Viennois,” and “our son the king Henry.” At any rate, except for the country on the banks of the Loire and a few cities in Burgundy, almost the whole of France did the same. The States-General recognized Henry as heir; and the parliament proceeded judicially against Charles of Valois, the dauphin of Viennois, and declared him banished from the kingdom and unworthy of succeeding to any seignory. The great lords, both temporal and spiritual, gave their oath of fidelity to the new heir without any conscientious scruples.

Henry V married Catherine, the daughter of Charles VI. But his troubles were already beginning; he was attacked by disease, and foresaw the future fate of his conquest when he should be no more. When the birth of his son was announced to him he said, “Henry of Monmouth,” speaking of himself, “will have reigned but few years and conquered much; Henry of Windsor will reign long and lose all: may God’s will be done”. He died August 31, 1422, leaving the regency in the hands of his brother Bedford, whom he commanded never to enter into any negotiations with the dauphin, and to preserve peace with the Duke of Burgundy. On the 21st of October Charles VI followed him to the tomb.

Two kings were proclaimed in France at the same time; one an Englishman, Henry VI, at Paris, the other the Frenchman, Charles VII, in Berry, at the church of Mehun-sur-Yèvres.

The situation of Charles VII was very critical. His recent defeat at Mons-en-Vimeu had driven his troops from Picardy, where, however, Xaintrailles was still fighting for his cause, and he had almost been driven back upon the Loire. He did not lack skillful captains and valiant knights, but all his brave warriors were demoralized by the court, which was a scene of indolence, intrigues and of the most insane extravagance. The English under the lead of the wise Duke of Bedford showed much more order and regard in their plans. They had undoubtedly wearied the French by their pride and insolence, and the Duke of Burgundy, their indispensable ally, had already been on the point of fighting with the Duke of Gloucester over Jacqueline of Hainault and her inheritance, but Bedford had made peace between them and had smoothed away all feelings of resentment. For years the Duke of Burgundy had looked with longing eyes on the valuable succession of Hainault, Holland, Zealand, and Friesland, of which Jacqueline had acknowledged him her heir; desirous of adding to his possessions in the direction of the Netherlands, he bought the county of Namur and the seignory of Bethune; and in order that he might be allowed to do this in peace and quietness by the English, he allowed them to pursue the conquest of France undisturbed. The battles of Crévant-sur-Yonne (1423) and Verneuil (1424) expelled the soldiers of Charles VII. from Burgundy and Normandy, and Chartres and Mans were taken. Finally in September, 1428, after all the approaches to the Loire had been conquered, the Earl of Salisbury laid siege to Orleans. This is the time when the fortunes of Charles VII and of France were at their lowest ebb. The treasury of the poor king contained hardly four crowns ; his table was wretched, and one day when La Hire and Xaintrailles came to see him he could offer them nothing but “two chickens and a sheep’s tail.” The nobles were jealous of his Scotch guard. They quarreled and fought with each other even at the meetings of his council. The constable of Richemond had vainly tried to restore order by energetic measures and by the execution of several of the most baneful of the king’s favorites; one of them, La Tremouille, succeeded in having him banished, and then there was no longer any one at court who was capable of restoring order and prosperity. Charles listened only to the most unworthy counsels; after the disastrous “day of the Herrings” (1429), he was persuaded to take refuge in the South and to abandon Orleans, the key to the Loire, and the gate to southern France. France was on the point of falling entirely into the hands of the English, when she was saved by one of those sudden changes of fortune which seem so impossible when we see them on the stage.       .

In Domremy, a little hamlet belonging to the diocese of Toul, but detached from it, there lived a poor family of peasants. The father was called Jacques d’Arc and the mother Isabelle Romée. They had three sons and two daughters. One of the daughters (Jeanne d’Arc), Joan of Arc, was a gentle, docile child, industrious and so timid that a single word was enough to disconcert her. In spite of the raillery of the other young girls, her piety increased with her years. As soon as she had finished her work she would hasten to church to say her prayers, of which she only knew the Pater, the Ave, and the Credo, or would go to the fields and sit dreaming and listening to the sound of the bells. At that time the war, both foreign and civil, had penetrated everywhere. Joan knew its consequences, for its ravages had extended even to her own hamlet. The political feeling was so strong there that the children of Domremy, which was Armagnac in its sympathies, often fought battles with those of a neighboring village which sympathized with the Burgundians. Possibly Joan may have seen her brothers return bleeding more than once from these combats. With a temperament prone to enthusiasm, and with weak health, a political exaltation was soon joined to her religious exaltation, as is often the case with women. After the battles of Crévant and Verneuil she fell into that strange state, well known to us today from thousands of examples, in which the conceptions of an excited imagination appear to it as outward realities. She saw visions and heard voices which said, “Joan, be always a devout, good and true child, and God will help you.” When Orleans was besieged the Archangel Michael appeared to her and told her to go to the aid of the king. She was much alarmed and protested that she was only a poor country girl; but the angel repeated his command, and appeared displeased with her. After that she had three visions a week, and kept seeing Saint Margaret and Saint Catherine, and acted entirely according to their words. To fulfill the commands from heaven, she planned to leave home with some soldiers. Her father heard of this, and said to his sons, “If I thought that such a thing would happen, I should wish you to drown her; and if you would not do it, I should drown her myself.” He tried to arrange a marriage for her. Hearing this Joan fled from her father’s house to that of an uncle near by. She then approached Baudricourt, a French captain of Charles VII, who was stationed at Vaucouleurs, and after much hesitation he directed Joan toward the banks of the Loire with an escort of six men.

She accomplished this difficult journey successfully, through a country almost in the hands of the enemy, and arrived at Chinon where the king had his headquarters, and hid herself among the courtiers. It was a hard task to convince this frivolous court of the reality of her mission, but she succeeded in doing so. When sent to Poitiers, she was questioned by the doctors, for some of them thought she was possessed of the devil; she foiled the subtlety of their questions by the simplicity of her answers. Her purity and piety inspired the people with enthusiasm, and public opinion triumphed over the hesitation of the court. Charles VII consented to give her arms, a banner, a page and a squire, and to send her to Orleans accompanied by his wisest captains. She restored decency to the camp, and even reformed the oaths of the old La Hire, the hardened Gascon captain who used to pray in these words : “Lord God, do unto La Hire as you would have La Hire do unto you, if you were La Hire and La Hire were God.” On Friday, the twenty-ninth of April, 1429, Joan of Arc entered Orleans. On Sunday, the eighth of May, the English raised the siege. The first part of her mission was accomplished; it now remained for her to have Charles consecrated at Rheims.

She carried with her the French army, and, what was more difficult, the king also. Her courage and piety inspired the French soldiers, while the English believed her to be a sorceress and fled at her approach. She took Jargeau and made Suffolk prisoner. She tried to reconcile the king with Richemond, and she gained the battle of Patay, where the brave Talbot was taken prisoner. She had an assault made on Troyes, against the decision of the council of the king, and Troyes fell. Finally she entered Rheims with the king, and was present at his consecration (July).

Joan now believed that she had accomplished the main part of her mission, and would gladly have returned to Domremy. When asked where she expected to die, she replied: “Where it pleases God, for I am no more sure of the time and place than you are, and would to God, my Creator, that I might go home, giving up my arms, and help my father and mother by taking care of their sheep with my sister and my brothers, who will greatly rejoice at seeing me.” She was not allowed to go, however, and served in the following campaign, taking part in the unsuccessful siege of Paris, where she was wounded. She was betrayed. Having shut herself into Compiegne to save it from the attacks of the Duke of Burgundy, she attempted, after a sortie, to cover the retreat ; but the governor had the gates shut before she could re-enter the city, and she fell into the hands of the bastard of Vendôme (May, 1430), and she was at last sold to the English for 10,000 francs.

In the eyes of the French Joan was a messenger from God; in those of the English she was sent by the devil, and they wished to prove this by a trial for witchcraft. The University of Paris demanded that the trial should be held in that city; but Bedford wished it to take place at Rouen, the most English as well as the most secure of the cities, and he put the direction of this shameful process in the hands of Peter Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais. It is hard to decide whether this monstrous affair was more odious or more contemptible. Every form of justice was violated. Calm, serene, and deep through her very simplicity, she escaped all the traps that were set for her without an effort and through the uprightness of her soul. Her replies were brief, spirited, and heroic. When asked if she believed herself in a state of grace, she wisely replied, “ If I am not in such a state, may God help me. A”nother time she said, “I carried a banner instead of a spear in order to avoid killing anyone. I have never killed a single person. I said, ‘Go boldly among the English,’ and I went among them myself.” Was the hope of victory in this banner? “It was founded on God and on nothing else.” Why did you carry the banner up to the altar at the consecration of Charles? “It had been present through all the trouble, which was reason enough that it should share in the honor.” Does God hate the English? “Whether God loves or hates the English, I know not; but I well know that they will be driven from France.” They had at first wished to treat her as a witch, but they had no grounds on which to do so. Only two of the articles of accusation could be maintained, her wearing man’s apparel and her refusal to submit to the Church. She had been persuaded that to submit to the Church was to recognize the legitimacy of the tribunal which was judging her, which she did not do; as to the man's apparel she gave it up for a while, but was obliged to resume it on account of the brutality of her jailers. Cauchon immediately declared her a relapsed heretic, and delivered her over to the secular arm to be burned. “Alas!” cried she at this terrible news, “I appeal to God from the cruelties done me.” Truly there was no one on earth for her to appeal to. The Pope would not hear her cries; the King of France forgot her on the throne which he had ascended through her help. The poor girl was burned on an enormous pile placed in the market-place at Rouen, and bore this torture with heroic courage (May 30, 1431).

Joan of Arc, who had saved France during her life, was still useful to her country by her death. The English party became odious and almost accursed to the people, because they had put to death a woman, a virgin, and a saint! The crime committed on the market-place of Rouen far surpassed the crime of the bridge of Montereau, and the memory of the latter had, moreover, grown somewhat dim with time. The Duke of Burgundy began to feel ill at ease in the anti-national party. Joan of Arc had rallied the whole nation about Charles VII. In 1431 Philip concluded a two years’ truce with the king. The war turned to his advantage. Richemond, who had driven Tremouille from the court and had regained his influence, conducted it with energy. It was in vain that Bedford brought young Henry VI to Paris and had him solemnly crowned there (1431). This ceremony was melancholy and boded no good. The capital was dying of hunger, commerce was paralyzed, the houses were falling to ruins, and bands of “flayers” scoured the neighboring country. Paris, whose sufferings had only increased under the English rule, began to think of returning to the legitimate king.

Preparations were now made for peace, and a congress was held at Arras (1435). This is the first great assembly of the kind, and was almost European in its character. Two cardinals presided over it, and besides the French and English ambassadors, ambassadors were sent by the emperor, the kings, of Castile, Aragon, Portugal, Navarre, Naples, Sicily, Cyprus, Poland, and Denmark, and by the dukes of Brittany and Milan. Ten thousand foreigners were present at the congress. After long discussions, the French consented to yield Aquitaine and Normandy to, Henry VI as a fief. This did not satisfy the ambition of the English. They stood firmly on the treaty of Troyes and demanded the crown of France. As they could not gain this, the congress broke up without accomplishing anything. It had, however, one important, result: the Duke of Burgundy, seeing that the war was to be continued through fault of the English, abandoned them and concluded the treaty of Arras with Charles VII (1435). This treaty was very advantageous to him, as he gained Auxerre, Macon, Peronne, Roye, and Montdidier, with the cities of the Somme, and was released for his whole lifetime from all homage to the crown of France. Charles VII judged wisely when he decided that even in this way the end of the civil war was not too dearly bought.

The reconciliation of the Burgundians with Charles prepared the way for that of Paris. In spite of the efforts of the English, the constable of Richemond entered the city through a gate which was opened to him by Michel Lallier, a rich merchant of the city. He promised the Parisians peace, amnesty, and harmony with both the king and the duke (1436). Charles VII visited his capital the following year, and from that time he could be called the veritable , king of France, while until then the English had called him, and with some justice, the king of Bourges.

From this time Charles was no longer the same man. The indolence of his younger years gave way to activity, prudence, and to boldness in enterprise. While he finished reconquering France, he also was busy in healing her other ills. Some attribute the honor of this change to Agnes Sorel, but more weight should be given to the influence of the constable of Richemond, of the count of Dunois, of the seneschal of Normandy, Jean de Brézé, of the chancellor Jouvenel, of Jacques Coeur, the minister of finance, of Chevalier, of Cousinot, secretary of the king, and of the brothers Bureau, who by greatly improving the French artillery procured a decided advantage for France on the field of battle and in the sieges of cities. By the Pragmatic Sanction Charles applied a remedy to the religious disorders; and by the ordinance of Orleans, to the military disorders. The establishment of a standing army, which was fatal to the feudal regime, stirred up the whole nobility in a resistance which came to a head in the “ Praguerie.” He was victorious over them, at the same time continuing to drive the English from the cities they still retained. A party in England, at the head of which was the cardinal of Winchester, demanded peace. Through his influence a truce of two years was concluded with France (1444), and was sealed by the marriage of Margaret of Anjou with Henry VI.

Charles seized this interval to imitate Charles V by getting rid of the roving bands that infested France. He started with 25,000 of these freebooters on the pretext of going to help sustain the rights of Ren of Anjou to the duchy of Lorraine, and sent his son, the Dauphin Louis, with a like army to fight the Swiss in a war with the house of Austria. Charles failed in his siege of Metz, and contented himself with exacting money for himself and his ally. As to the Dauphin he defeated in the battle at Saint Jacques 1600 Swiss, losing 8000 men himself. This loss was of little importance, as his aim was to “draw the bad blood of France.” The Dauphin was struck by the valor of the Swiss mountaineers, and made a treaty with them by which they engaged to help him with 4000 men whenever he should need their help.

When the truce with the English had expired, Charles VII hastened to renew the war with great energy and success. Normandy was reconquered by Dunois and Richemond, who gained the battle of Formigny (1450). Guienne shared the same fate in spite of the friendship of the Gascons for the English. The victory of Castillon, in which Talbot was killed, and which was due to the French artillery, permanently restored this province to France. The English retained only Calais on the continent. This was the end of the Hundred Years War, a war which, by giving rise to the lasting antagonism between France and England, made their separate nationalities much more distinct. France especially gained unity from it, and the south and north  drew closer together, while her people, who are only moved by violent and continuous action, were initiated into a national life and acquired a sentiment for it. They now saw in their king not only their protector, but the hereditary defender of France, and they loved him with a kind of adoration. It was this spirit which had in a way found its personification in Joan of Arc, a daughter of the people, both saint and warrior, the liberator of her country, inspired with the worship of royalty.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

INTERNAL HISTORY OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND DURING THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR.