.jpg)
The Chevalier Bayard
by Samuel Shellabarger
Chapter 1
The Loyal Servant
Among famous men, there is none who occupies a more distinct and enviable place than Pierre Terrail, Seigneur de Bayard.1 It is a pure fame curiously underived from any commanding achievement, from any decisive influence on great events. That it was he who was chosen to knight his king after the field of Marignano, that he defeated Don Alonzo de Soto-Mayor in a noted duel, that he successfully defended Mézières, the key of France, on a critical emergency, are half-forgotten episodes of scant avail in explaining his ultimate distinction. He has become a household name for half the world. And yet, among the leaders of his time, even in the profession of war, he remained nearly always a subordinate. Apart from legendary figures, it would be hard to find any one whose tangible accomplishment bears less relation to such universal celebrity. Somewhat in the manner of St. Francis of Assisi, it appears to be the triumph of a singularly lovable and harmonious spirit. Bayard's renown is the perpetuation of the charm he exerted upon his contemporaries, the admiration his character evoked, the ideal he personified.
It should be observed, however — and insufficient attention has been hitherto given to the fact — that his fame is largely the result of fortunate accident. The cult of a hero is often indebted to an obscure disciple, and in this instance derives from a single biography. It is the merest chance that this happened to be a captivating biography, such as insured lasting popularity to its subject. Bayard's history by that anonymous writer, whom scholars believe with reasonable certainty to have been Jacques de Mailles, but who signs himself proudly the Loyal Servant, holds without question a place among permanent books. It has every quality of artistic excellence: that sense of proportion which avoids tedium, a style harmonious with its matter, the ease and fluency of confident narrative, firm delicacy in the choice of phrase and incident. Above all, it is unified by a definite conception of its hero expressed at the outset and maintained unvaried. It is the romantic and chivalric conception, the one which established itself at once and has continued unchallenged. (I)
Only by subtracting from the sum of our knowledge with regard to Bayard that part contributed by the Loyal Servant, do we become aware of what would have been the loss if his book had remained unwritten. We would vaguely discern the figure of a man beneath the rhetorical fustian of Champier, in the terse annals of Du Rivail, occasionally in the chronicles of d'Auton, in the brief references of Du Bellay, Florange, and Giovio, guess at a personality behind the few formal letters signed in a schoolboy hand — Bayart. Perhaps the garrulous Brantôme would have still afforded a paragraph among those devoted to other forgotten captains. And indeed it is questionable whether among contemporaries the fame of Bayard exceeded that of many illustrioushommes d'armes, his comrades — of Louis d'Ars, for instance, his first commander, the hero of Apulia; the brave de Lude, defender of Fontarabbia; or d'Essé, Montoison, Imbercourt, La Crote, Vandenesse, the "little lion," as they called him, and, among greater gentlemen, La Palice, Chaumont, La Tremouille, and others, who pass in glimpses across the page of uninspired chronicle. Bayard would have shared the semi-oblivion of their once gallant and intense lives, were it not for the genius of his historian. It is to him we owe the fullness of portraiture, the consecutive narrative, the artistry of suppression and emphasis which gives character and discloses personality. It is through him, in short, and, one is tempted to add, only through him, that the world has formed its traditional conception of Bayard; and any adequate review of the latter's life must necessarily begin with an analysis of this fundamental work, its limitations as well as its merits.
It is a portly book2 with a portly title, which may be Englished as follows: "The right joyous, merry, and entertaining history, composed by the Loyal Servant, of the acts, deeds, achievements, and prowesses of the good knight without fear and without reproach, the gentle Seigneur de Bayart of whom the praise is spread throughout Christendom: and of other good, valiant, and virtuous captains of his times. Together with the wars, battles, encounters, and assaults, which took place during his life in France, Spain, and Italy." It was printed at Paris in 1527, three years after Bayard's death,3 and was almost certainly composed by Jacques de Mailles, an archer in the latter's company and his secretary. Except for several important lacunas, it deals with his entire career from childhood to death. Moreover, de Mailles was native to Bayard's own district in Dauphiné,4 served his hero from 1507, or at least 1509, until the end of his last campaign in 1524, and, as it was he, a notary public at Grenoble, who drew up the marriage contract between Jeanne Terrail, the Chevalier's daughter, and François de Bocsozel, there is every reason to assume that his connection with the Terrail family remained intimate.5 Few biographers have had higher credentials of authenticity. But add to this the wealth of detail, the circumstantial narrative, the limpid naïveté of the author, and it is not surprising that for well-nigh four hundred years he has been considered an irrefragable source, an authority above suspicion.
Of late he has been discredited. Put to the test of modern research, the "Joyous History" becomes a most amazing document. It is, in a word, partially nothing but fiction. And yet we have no generic term exactly descriptive of this book. To call it biography is perhaps more accurate, but hardly so, than to call it historical romance. Probably the nearest approach would be to borrow from another art and call it idealistic portraiture. A brief survey of its method will make this point clear.
De Mailles starts with an account of Bayard's youth about which he evidently knew little. He invents a romantic and touching departure from home and an equally picturesque debut at the court of Savoy. He shortens his stay there from four years to six months, sends him to Lyons with the Duke of Savoy on a journey which never took place, describes an imaginary meeting with Charles VIII of France, reports how an exhibition of the boy's horsemanship, especially arranged, pleased the king, and how the latter, having asked for him as page, entrusted him to the care of his favorite, the Count of Ligny. Now most of this simply did not happen and the rest is exceedingly doubtful. What follows is equally open to suspicion: how Bayard, at the age of seventeen, fought with credit in the lists against Claude de Vaudray, and how, being sent to his garrison in Aire, he gave a tournament largely attended, where he bestowed valuable prizes and outshone the others. It is all very charming, splendidly told, and probably imaginary. This ends the period of Bayard's youth as de Mailles records it. But even later he provides his hero with a Platonic romance, which may or may not have occurred. At all events, the tournament held at Carignano, where Bayard again donates the prize and wins distinction in his lady's honor, never took place. The lady, whoever she was, was not the wife of the man stated by de Mailles. The entire affair savors of fiction.
With the Venetian campaign of 1509, a slight change is felt in the narrative. On one occasion, by inadvertency, the personal pronoun creeps in.6 A greater abundance of details, a sharper feeling of reality convey the impression of direct participation in events. It was at this time presumably that de Mailles first entered Bayard's service. Over half of his book deals with the six years from 1509 through 1515. And yet here as well allowance must be made for exaggeration, adroit panegyric, imaginary dialogues, and perhaps even for fanciful incidents. (II)
But if our author embroiders and invents, he is equally dexterous in leaving out and foreshortening. No reference is made to the liaison not so Platonic of his hero with Barbara dei Trechi, no reference to the period of inaction between 1504 and 1507 or to similar peaceful and therefore inglorious intervals. Hardly a mention is accorded to Bayard's administration of Dauphiné as lieutenant-governor. From war to war and deed to deed the narrative flows on with such deft art, such bland transitions, as to give no sense of interruption.
From the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.
Title-Page of the Loyal Servant, First Edition, 1527
Therefore, both as to what he includes and omits, the Loyal Servant is alike unreliable and adroit. We have the curious example of a semifanciful biography written of a man by his friend to be read by other friends or acquaintances, who must have realized that considerable liberties had been taken with the subject. One would expect a certain protest or, at least, a reservation on the part of well-informed contemporaries, that the Loyal Servant was not to be quoted with complete seriousness. There is no evidence that any appeared. Brantôme, to be sure, speaks of the "Joyous History" as a vieux roman, but the term probably denotes merely a work written in the popular tongue. At all events, he refers to it only with praise, and his own memorial of Bayard is drawn chiefly from its pages. Du Rivail, the writer of sober chronicle and a personal friend of Bayard's, follows it closely.7 As far as one can judge, it became immediately popular. But no matter how great a concession be made to the ingenuous faith in printed words, which has since not been entirely outgrown, it is inconceivable that an openly false delineation of Bayard should have gained acceptance undetected among a public who knew him. Is it then an instance of artistic legerdemain? Or did de Mailles, for all his disregard of fact, bear essentially true witness?
These questions obviously effect a just estimate of Bayard. They are perhaps more easily answered by expressing them differently. For what purpose did de Mailles alter fact by invention or suppression? And, secondly, is the fundamental truth of character distorted by this method?
We can at once dispose of any facile suggestion that his motives were to produce chiefly an entertaining book. One has only to consider the spirit of consecration expressed in the preface and in the closing pages, the warm current of love and reverence inspiring the whole, to realize that the author's intention is memorial and moral. That he is entertaining, that he tells his story with grace and gusto, are the innate qualities of a natural raconteur, as they form also the duty of a literary artist. But entertainment, though incidental, is not his end. With the zeal of a worshiper, he strives to share with others his own enthusiasm, his own privilege — the spirit of a great man who has dignified his life and become his hero. He would have Bayard remembered by others as by himself, a pattern for others as for himself. "And I dedicate this my rude history," he writes, "to the three estates of the most excellent, mighty, and renowned kingdom of France."
No one escapes the tendency to typify objects of strong emotion or affection. Unconsciously, friends and enemies are ranked in classes more or less conventional, are subject to gradual generalizations, which form the ultimate conception of character. They recall certain types and traditions, appear to embody certain principles, and are finally interpreted by these. The conception may be narrow or erroneous; it remains, however, wholly true to the one who entertains it. And of this process, no better example can be found than de Mailles's attitude toward Bayard. It is this unquestionably that accounts for his entire treatment of the subject. He adds or suppresses, improvises and embellishes to suit his informing motif, the dominant idea. What this was, becomes at once apparent in a phrase, which if de Mailles did not invent, he at least made immortal: the chevalier sans peur et sans reproche.8
It is literally a motif. Like the refrain of a ballad, it appears and reappears almost with a certain rhythm, is insisted upon, and, though with skill, is constantly repeated. It begins and ends the book. In short, to the Loyal Servant, Bayard represented a tradition fast becoming obsolete — that of chivalry with its romantic and religious connotations. He thinks of him in the heroic terms of knightly prowess and old legend. A contemporary of the Borgias, Pope Julius, and Machiavelli, he associates him implicitly with the generation of Froissart, Du Guesclin, and the Black Prince, represents him, in fact, as a man born after his time.
Thus, intent on his paramount conception, the Loyal Servant fashions for Bayard an appropriate youth, more gallant, more brilliant than actuality. It is probable that he knew of it little enough except a few vague passages, for the Chevalier had passed thirty when de Mailles entered his service, and men of action at the prime of life are not apt to dwell overlong on boyhood memories. At all events, he gave full rein to his fancy and described not what was, but what ought to have been the youth of his hero, as a dauntless knight. If precocity in arms, if feats of horsemanship before duke or king, if courtly tournaments heightened the picture, he introduced them, careless of fact because convinced of their essential truth to Bayard's character. They might have happened. If romantic love, the wearing of my lady's sleeve in triumph, if tender worship unstained by passion, belonged to chivalry, his stainless knight must have a share of it. And so throughout. Prosaic fact is ordered, moulded, glorified, to fit a higher harmony.
The result, however, is convincing. No foolish rhetoric, no archaic tinsel mars the treatment. De Mailles's romance is not superficially romantic. In colloquial idiom, with Chaucerian simplicity, he portrays the past transfused into the present. As a term adequately descriptive of this method, we suggest once more the phrase, idealistic portraiture.
But granting that such was de Mailles' conception of Bayard and such his manner of presenting it, a more vital question remains as to whether he was right. Did the chevalier sans peur et sans reproche actually exist outside of his henchman's fancy? Is the "Joyous History," however inaccurate, still to be retained as the true picture of a real man? If so, its frequent indifference to external fact, though regrettable, is still relatively unimportant, for portraiture is not photography.
To all such questions, there can be only an affirmative answer. De Mailles is not our only authority for Bayard's life. Sometimes a glimpse is afforded by impartial chronicle; letters exist between correspondents officially hostile to him, which furnish capital evidence of his reputation; there are established facts equally illuminating; there is, moreover, the longer testimony of two other friends and contemporaries, Champier and Du Rivail. And in none of these does any feature of the man appear which contradicts de Mailles's interpretation. Not that they all depict him as representative of waning chivalry — to many he was doubtless simply an upright, courageous soldier, energetic, devoted, and popular — but none of them reveals a phase of character, which would make the romantic conception impossible. On the contrary, there is much to support it: his behavior in the duel with Soto-Mayor, his role in knighting the king at Marignano, his well attested gallantry on the field of battle, his magnanimous treatment of the unfortunate whether in peace or war, his constant charity, his religious faith. And there are other more specific traits, to be considered later, which show him as at least a conservative, but perhaps consciously the upholder of chivalric tradition. In short, the truth seems to have been that something in Bayard's personality encouraged the archaic estimate of him. Spiritually, he appears in sober fact to have belonged to a period earlier than his own. In this fundamental aspect, then, de Mailles was justified.
Moreover, it is hard to escape the conviction that his external portrait is true. He wrote with the zeal of love and the confidence of long intimacy; could recall, as he sat, a man of peace at last, in his study at Grenoble, visions, replacing its walls, of youth and Italy — fragments of retrospect; could evoke, by that queer resonance of memory, the tone of Bayard's voice, a familiar attitude, tricks of manner, the important trivialities of character. At all events, the impression conveyed by his narrative is an immediate impression. He sees what he relates, particularizes an episode by its appropriate nuance. We seem to hear the speech of his characters; they stand out boldly from the page; instinctively we realize that so Bayard spoke, acted, smiled.
In view of such excellences, de Mailles's neglect of biographic fact may be condoned. More accurate authors have written far less truthful history. In any case, he will never be superseded. Scholars will doubtless continue to disclose his errors and amend his statements, but it will be always through him that the essential Bayard is revealed. — A curious commentary on the relative importance of what actually occurs and what vividly distinguishes in the record of any given life.
There remains, however, the question as to how far the Loyal Servant may be used as a source in modern biography, which aims at a more critical and more comprehensive treatment. In the first place, it is well not to exaggerate the extent of his inaccuracy. Beginning with the second invasion of Naples in 1501, it is practically certain that he gives a true account of Bayard's military career, though proper allowance should often be made for the tendency to magnify his hero's importance. Thus, for example, when he represents him as taking part with distinction in the Neapolitan campaign, there is no reason to doubt the fact, established, indeed, by other evidence. Skepticism begins with such an assertion that he defended a bridge single-handed against two hundred Spaniards.9 Similarly, it is true that he led a charge against the forts at Genoa, that he commanded a division of foot at Agnadello, that he shared in the Ferrarese campaigns, and so forth. It is the sensational episode recorded only by de Mailles, the sort which, had it occurred, would almost certainly have been mentioned by other writers, that is open to suspicion. For the rest, even if unverifiable, it would be captious to reject his statement that Bayard went here or there, was stationed at this or the other garrison. In the main, therefore, we can accept without demur, as true, de Mailles's general outline from the year 1501 on, and especially after the year 1509. To use him wisely requires an occasional balance of probabilities; but in spite of frequent exaggeration the book remains historically a valuable document in regard both to its subject and to the events incidentally described.
In the following study, impartial records, where they exist, have usually been given precedence over the "Joyous History." Where it becomes our only source for an episode, however credible intrinsically, the fact has none the less been noted. On the other hand, certain passages have been retained, which are not only improbable, but in part necessarily fictitious: and this for a two-fold end. In the first place, they give an excellent picture of late fifteenth and early sixteenth century life. They provide an atmosphere and milieu without which biography remains only a calendar of events. In the second place, whether imaginary or not, they reflect something of Bayard's living personality, his manner of speech and thought, his individual accent. That, on a given occasion, he or others actually spoke the purported words, is more than dubious; that, on the other hand, they might have done so, is almost certain. It is naturally regrettable that no English rendering can wholly convey the freshness, strength, and pith of the original. It is hoped, however, that a suggestion of this has been retained.
But de Mailles, as we have seen, is not the single authority for Bayard's life. A brief statement of other primary sources will not be superfluous. They are, first in importance, the writings of Symphorien Champier and Aymar du Rivail — the former a cousin by marriage of the Chevalier's, the second, his intimate friend.10
Champier, a physician of Lyons, attached also to the service of the Duke of Lorraine, was inordinately proud of his connection with the more aristocratic and soldierly family of Terrail, and he gloried particularly in his relationship with Bayard.11 He composed in his honor a life published in 1525 entitled "Les gestes ensemble la vie du preux Chevalier Bayard etc.," together with a Latin résumé, "Compendiosa illustrisimi Baiardi vita," of like date. He mentions him also in other works — for he was a prolific writer — and especially in his "Trophaeum Gallorum," a eulogy of French prowess, published in 1507, and in his "Triomphe du . . . Roy Louys XII" appearing in 1509. He might have been an invaluable authority on the life of his distinguished kinsman; but no more fatuous pedant ever existed than Champier. He is an acolyte of the New Learning, is intoxicated with antiquity. Upon the fermentation of his rhetoric, his classical allusions, opaque style, and aimless parallels with Greek and Roman worthies, there floats at times a scrap of information. Occasionally he forgets himself into sober fact, but in general contributes little.
Aymar du Rivail is an author of different stamp. The last book of his chronicle of Dauphiné, written in clear, unadorned Latin, abounds in details concerning Bayard, derived in part, at least, from personal knowledge or from conversation with the Chevalier himself.12 Although borrowing, no doubt frequently, from the "Joyous History" he offers much that is new, particularly with regard to the latter part of Bayard's life. The impression made is one of accuracy as to matters within his direct experience.
The writings of Champier, the Loyal Servant, and Du Rivail have much in common and are certainly interrelated; but the degree of resemblance with regard to details of narrative is much greater between the two last than between them and Champier.13 The process was probably this: de Mailles took over the episodes appearing in Symphorien's earlier book, but treated them with his own artistry and perhaps in the light of his more special knowledge. Du Rivail, in turn, carefully transcribed parts of the "Joyous History," supplementing these with a few personal reminiscences. This connection between the three principal sources is worth noting, because to adduce one in support of the other means more often than not a repetition rather than additional evidence.
It is, however, only by comparing the testimony of this group with other independent accounts, that the resemblance in question becomes more clearly apparent. As counterweight to Bayard's more special biographers, the chronicles of d'Auton and Martin Du Bellay, the Memoirs of Florange, Sanuto's Diaries, and other similar documents, are of capital value. Not that they are adverse, but they are presumably impartial. They form a steady deterrent to partizan exuberance or exaggeration. In them, it is not as preux chevalier or as chevalier sans peur et sans reproche that Bayard appears, but as Captain Bayard, Piquet Bayard (his old nickname), Monsieur, or Monseigneur de Bayard ceremoniously, and this fact is illustrative of their more sober treatment. To such authorities should be added the work of several men, who, though not contemporaries, were still in contact with survivors of the earlier generation, and whose fathers or grandfathers had borne arms under Charles VIII or Louis XII — Brantôme and Claude Expilly. The former adds little to what he has found in de Mailles. He recalls vaguely that his father, a veteran of the Neapolitan wars, had told him anecdotes of Bayard and "praised him to the skies," and he has talked with an old comrade of the Chevalier's in Dauphiné; but for the rest his usual frothy gossip replaces fact.14 Expilly is much more useful. Born in 1561, president of the parliament of Dauphiné, he was well placed to gather data preserved by the family of Terrail, at that time not yet extinct. Moreover, he cites as evidence a document, since lost, the memorial of Bayard's last hours, written by his personal attendant, Jacques Jeffrey. His account of the Chevalier's ancestry and family, of his daughter Jeanne Terrail, of his personal appearance, and of his death, is of fundamental importance.15
A third class of evidence, and, as far as it goes, the most infallible, is, of course, contemporary papers: receipts, letters, expense accounts, and the like, many of which are published in Roman's edition of the "Loyal Servant." The location of others will be indicated below in the appropriate footnotes; but particular attention should be given to two volumes: first, Monnet's admirable documentation of Bayard's apprenticeship at the court of Savoy, which contains all that is known of this period;16 and next, a Séries of letters discovered by Molard in the Gonzaga archives of Mantua.17 These last throw light on obscure passages of the Chevalier's closing years, his activities as military adviser at Genoa, and his relations with the Constable of Bourbon. They are above all interesting as a reflection of enemy opinion at the very hour of his death, for three of them were written practically from the battle-field.
This is not the place to review in detail all the sources for Bayard's life, which will be found enumerated in the Bibliography. It was essential, however, to describe the kind of documents that concern him, to point out how much can be learned and with what degree of credibility. And the upshot is this, that we can piece together more about him than about any other homme d'armes of similar rank during this period.
The fact is of interest. It was an era of rapid change. The age of Chivalry, of steel to steel, of aristocratic war, was fast giving way to plebeian infantry and scientific firearms. In retracing Bayard's career, we retrace also the advent of our own times; we observe from a certain angle the conflict of past and present; and we examine a not unimportant, but usually unfamiliar phase of the Renaissance. His life has, therefore, a general significance. But, after all, it remains of value by reason of its own worth, its moral stature and moral beauty.
Hence, it should be our purpose to consider him against the background of his age from a perspective gained by time and modern scholarship; but above all and beyond this to enjoy the pleasure of association with one of history's most distinguished gentlemen. For biography is not merely instructive and memorial, but an escape.
1 — In the late fifteenth century, the pronunciation of this name was probably akin to that of modern English: Bé-iar, the bé having the same value as in our word bay. It was frequently written, and, indeed, by the Chevalier himself, Bayart, and some modern authors have preferred this form. But in the early sixteenth century, the Latinizing process, which changed the -art suffixes into -ard, had already begun, and the name Bayard, as it is generally written, has become so universally established that it seems merely pedantic to revert to the earlier orthography. Cf. C. Monnet, Bayard et la Maison de Savoie, p. XI ff.
2 — One hundred and two quarto sheets.
3 — Roman attempts to prove the existence of a vanished edition of 1525. He does not, I think, establish his case. See Roman's edition of the Loyal Servant, Paris 1878. Intro, p. XI-XII.
4 — The ruins of the de Mailles's stronghold are still to be seen eight kilometers distant from Pontcharra, Bayard's birthplace, on the right bank of the Gorge du Fay above Cheylas and Morêtal. See Mourral, Bayard, le Chevalier sans Peur et sans Reproche. Grenoble, 1924, p. 10 n.
5 — The whole of this contract has been reprinted by Roman, op. cit., p. 474-480.
6 — Roman's edition, p. 144.
7 — E.g. the episode of the Spanish treasurer: Roman's edition p. 114 ff., and Du Rivail, De Allobrogibus, libri IX. Vienne, 1844, p. 543 ff.
8 — It was a traditional phrase used frequently enough at the period. La Tremouille is called by his biographer chevalier sans reproche. Brantôme observes that it was applied to La Crote and Fontrailles. The same was true with regard to d'Aubigny. It is a proof of de Mailles's literary skill that it became identified for all time with Bayard.
9 — It should be added that de Mailles is not always responsible for such statements. A legend seems to have sprung up about Bayard during his life, and of this, the bridge episode is a case in point. It appears in the Trophaeum Gallorum of Champier, published in 1507, and again in his Gestes de Bayard in 1525. De Mailles simply adapts the anecdote.
10 — Du Rivail affirms this himself: valde enim me diligebat. Op. cit., p. 578. Moreover, his eldest son was sponsored at baptism by Laurent Alleman, bishop of Grenoble, Bayard's uncle, his second son by Philip Terrail, Bayard's brother, and his fourth by Boutières, Bayard's lieutenant. See preface to Du Rivail's chronicle by Terrebasse p. XIX.
11 — Cf. Mourral, op. cit., p. 45 n.
12 — Notably with regard to Mézières: magnum cum eo de gestis apud Macerias colloquium habui. Du Rivail, op. cit., p. 572.
13 — It is only necessary to compare the accounts by the Loyal Servant and Du Rivail of the second Neapolitan campaign with that of Champier to recognize this fact. On the other hand, Du Rivail, whose work, ending with the year 1535, is apparently later than the Joyous History, would seem to have borrowed from the latter, published in 1527.
14 — Brantôme: M. de Bayard. Ed. Lalanne, Paris 1864. Vol. II, p. 382.
15 — C. Expilly: Histoire du Chevalier Bayard, Grenoble 1650. See further A.
De Rochas: La Famille de Bayard, Annu. hérald. France (1892), V, p. 140.
16 — C. Monnet: Bayard et la Maison de Savoie, Paris and Turin, 1926.
17 — F. Molard: Le Carteggio des Ambassadeurs de Mantoue (1521-1524), Paris, 1896.
