Bibliographical Essay Bertrand du Guesclin (1302?-1380) is one of the national heroes of France. Although he was of lower birth, he attained the highest military position in France as connétable –...Show moreBibliographical Essay Bertrand du Guesclin (1302?-1380) is one of the national heroes of France. Although he was of lower birth, he attained the highest military position in France as connétable – or constable – of France. He was one of the outstanding military leaders of the Hundred Year’s War (1337-1453) between France and England. Bertrand became known after he defeated Sir Thomas Canterbury (of whom hardly anything is known) in the “fight of the century” and the successful defense of Rennes against an English siege in 1356-57. He was appointed captain of Pontorson. His next major victory was at the Battle of Cocherel in 1364 when he defeated the troops of Charles II the Bad (1332-1387), the king of Navarra. In 1366 and in 1369 Bertrand led bands of mercenaries, also known as the compagnies, out of France and into Spain to bring more peace to France and to help Henry of Trastámara (1334-1379), to gain the throne on his half-brother Peter I the Cruel (1334-1369). In 1370 he was appointed connétable, recalled from Spain to fight the English again. The next few years he gave the French several victories, but died in 1380 besieging an English fortress at Châteauneuf-de-Randon. During the years following Bertrand’s death in 1380, a rhymed chronicle was written. The exact year is unknown, although it must be before 1392 – a copy of the manuscript exists in England and is dated between 1380-1392. The chronicle is most commonly named La vie valliant de Bertran du Guesclin and exists of approximately 22.790 verses. Most is unknown about this work. There is no mention that La vie valliant was commissioned by anyone, and the remarks to the sources used are vague. Even the name of the author is not certain. Most modern historians call him ‘Cuvelier’. The author names himself in the 21th verse, but the names differ in the manuscripts. His relationship towards Bertrand is completely unknown. It has been said – and some modern historians take it for certain – that Cuvelier was the same as Jehan Li Cuneliers, a poet in service of the king. The names ‘Cuvelier’ and ‘Cunelier’ can easily be read as the same when hand-written. There are six chansons known by this Cunelier, which are apparently similar to La vie valliant. However, it has also been said that Cunelier died too early to be the composer of La vie valliant. La vie valliant has been received in very different manners. Some base their biographies of Bertand du Guesclin completely on this work. Others claim that the author never met Bertrand and that La vie valliant should not be used as a reliable source. At least it can be said that since the manuscripts sometimes differ on numbers and names, one should not take everything literally. Some mistakes have also been pointed out in years and locations. This variety in reception by modern authors has something to do with the questions concerning the commissioner and the sources of this work. When one assumes that the king, Philip the Bold (1342-1404) was the commissioner of La vie valliant, it makes sense that the author had entry to more official sources. Other historians assume that Cuvelier came by his ‘facts’ by talking to Bertrand’s family and comrades-at-arms. The theory that one accepts, determines the amount of authority this work is given. Therefore, I would like to research to which extent Cuvelier’s sources can be found by analyzing the hints and indications in his work – and by analyzing the ‘mistakes’ Cuvelier has made. The question of the sources used by Cuvelier answers to these discussions – about his identity and his authority. Also, to analyze his sources would give us a deeper insight of medieval chroniclers, how they worked, what they could do or could not do. Thereby, this question has not been asked yet. There is no paper which analyzes both views on Cuvelier, their pros and cons. Yet I think the discussion on Cuvelier needs, and lacks, exactly that. Roughly, it can be said that the discussion consists of two camps: one that argues La vie valliant was commissioned by the king and was based on official sources, and the other which argues that it was based on eye-witness stories. Strange enough, of this latter camp, only Coryn accepts eyewitness’ stories as a reliable source. In this debate, Dupuy and Tixier represents the side which don’t consider Cuvelier reliable, Charrière and Jamison merely neutrally list the arguments, and Chattaway, Jacob, Lemoine and a library-website represent the pro-Cuvelier side. I will start searching for Cuvelier’s sources by first explaining his work more deeply. What Cuvelier does say – and what he doesn’t. Several manuscripts which contain la vie valliant have been lost or are at least not where they once were. The problem finding the manuscripts comes from the fact that most historians nowadays use the printed version of la vie valliant by Charrière – a far more available source, but one who has mixed several manuscripts. The master thesis by Yvonne Vermijn has been very helpful in locating the remaining manuscripts. In this thesis she analyzes the relationship between these manuscripts, which is very useful when it comes to getting as close as possible to the original work. Another helpful book here has been written by De la Poix, the only biography on Du Guesclin I have been able to find so far that uses La Roumant de Rertrand de Glayequin – a Breton version of la vie valliant. For a more general view on chronicles in the late fourteen century I plan to use the noticed book by Given-Wilson and an article by Menache. In the second chapter I will give an overview of the two sides in the discussion. What are the arguments for thinking Cuvelier could be Cunelier? What are the arguments for him not to be? To which extent are they provable? In the third chapter I will present the works that other historians thought were Cuvelier’s sources and his hints to believe so, and the arguments, of course, not to believe so. Last but not least I will present a list with the ‘mistakes’ made by Cuvelier. To which extent can they lead back to his position or sources – or are maybe not even mistakes at all? There are ‘mistakes’ pointed out in books by Stoddard and Tixier, and an article by Levine. Charrière has also marked some ‘mistakes’ in his printed version of la vie valliant. One I have found myself – Cuvelier describes a meeting with, amongst others, the English general Chandos, whereas Chandos, according to his own work – was not present at all.Show less
