bearvi that it would, I think, be ungrateful to make any complaints. I have inferted fummarily in this criticifm a (ketch of the opinions which different authors have given of him \ and they may be confulted. I will add that of an author who knew better than any other the full value of a ready and natural genius. " I love/* fays Montagne, " hiftorians unaffefted cc or excellent : thè unaffefted, who have not M wherewithal to add of their own, and who are e* only careful to colieft and pick up every thing ce which falls within their notice, and to put down « every thing without choice and without forting, " gives us the opportunity of wholly judging of c € their truth. Such, for example, is the good « Froiffart, who has gone on with his.work,with " fuch a frank fimplicity, that, having committed a cc fault, he is no way aihamed of avowing it, and € C correôing it at the place where he is informed of " it ; and who tells us the diverfity of rumours " which were current, and the different accounts " that were told to him. It is hiftory, naked and " unadorned ; every one may profit from it, ac* " cording to the depth of his underftanding." I come now to the editions of Froiffart. We have three black-letter ones, and two pofterior to them ; that which I believe to be the oldeft, is by Anthony Verard^ at Paris, without a date, three volumes in folio. The fécond is printed at Paris, by Michael le Noir, the 15th July, 1505, two volume* in folio j in a haudfome type. The third is date4 Paris,