'Cuvelier', author of the rhymed chronicle on Bertrand du Guesclin, appears to have made some strange decisions while writing his chronicle. First, because he decided to write his story in verse in a time when a discussion bloomed on whether verse-chronicles should be taken seriously.
Secondly, because he does not spend much attention to chronology, although some of his contemporaries do not either. He furthermore has put his work in an odd, old fashioned shape. These characteristics all seem to indicate that the work was meant more as a piece of
entertainment, rather than a historical piece. The audience for this work must have been, due to its size, very small. We should not read this work as a general advertisement for France in the war, but used for amusement. Therefore, it would be easy to state this work should not be taken as an historical work. However, let us not be to quick in our judgement.
Clear to see is that Cuvelier was an anti-semitic. Regarding his time and age and the fact that antisemitism was used in the war propaganda in Spain, this is not at all strange, but makes the work infected by only one side of this propaganda. Readers should be careful when analyzing the parts in Cuvelier's story concerning Jews. Other object of satire is the Church; the Pope is put away as avarice and as vain. This too, has been seen more often in his contemporaries' works, but this does not make it true.
The murder on Blanche de Bourbon is hard to check, but was apparently a rumor at the time: d'Ayala confirms Cuvelier's version of events here. The presence of Bertrand du Guesclin at Avignon can be confirmed, but the absolution and the money given by the Pope cannot. The help given to don Henry and Bertrand by the kingdom of Aragon on the other hand, is very well documented and Cuvelier's interpretation of this seems correct.
The route Bertrand took to Burgos, via Magallón, Borja and Briviesca according to Cuvelier, also seems to be correct. However, Briviesca was not taken by Bertrand's Compagnies, according to the city's documents. D'Ayala again confirms Cuvelier's version of events here, so again, it may be rumor was flowing that Briviesca was taken. Then the coronation at Burgos is again confirmed, but giving Molina as duchy as a reward to Bertrand is false, since that happened two years later, after the death of don Pedro. D'Ayala and Cuvelier are again both wrong here.
The route after Burgos to Toledo, Cordoue and Séville does seem correct. We know Bertrand was at Toledo and at Séville due to correspondence kept, Cordoue and Séville are confirmed by other
chroniclers: d'Ayala, Chandos and the chronicle en prose. Also, Bertrand was most definitely at Najera and captured there: the evidence confirming this is great. However, Cuvelier most probably greatly exaggerated the number of men fighting at the battle there; John Chandos was actually there and the numbers he mentions are much smaller.
Cuvelier starts his story of the second campaign in a very plausible way. The ransom Bertrand pays to Edward of Woodstock seems to be correct and the sieges of Tarascon and Arles are as well. We do not know whether Bertrand traveled to Bretagne and Bordeaux afterwards, but he certainly did have time to do so.
Now the story turns more vague. We do not see a return to Molina, as Cuvelier suggests, but we do know Bertrand was at Borja. We do not know whether he was at Toledo: despite the total lack of evidence, modern historians do accept his presence there. It is clear that he was at Montiel, but the events there remain very vague, except for the outcome: don Pedro was killed.
When Bertrand returns to France, we indeed see a visit to Soria on his way back, but there is no evidence he laid a siege before the city. The numbers Cuvelier mentions in this campaign do seem more plausible than in the first: a company of 2.000 men seem to match with accounts written at the time.
Cuvelier, whoever he may have been, does seem to tell the story neatly, but sometimes tends to exaggerate. This may be due to an entertainment-aspect, since big numbers simply make an hero more epic. His work should not be used as sole basis for any work on Bertrand's life, but neither should this work be ignored.
The main conclusion must be that we have to remain very careful when writing about Bertrand du Guesclin's life. Much remains vague and unclear. Seeing as I found mistakes not only in Cuvelier's work, but also in the work of authorities of this age and before, such as d'Ayala, Jean-Claude Faucon and Michael Jones, it seems to me that one has to check and dubble-check every detail as much as possible when writing on this subject, for much remains vague and and information is often merely assumed. Sources on Bertrand du Guesclin's life, fascinating as they are, are not fully analyzed yet. Also, Bertrand du Gueslin is not the only interesting character here. Cuvelier and other sources have much to offer on don Henry of Trastámara, don Pedro the Cruel or Pere IV of Aragon. This is definitely a subject where further research is needed and should be done.