ht took advantage of going to England, where he had not been for twnfy-lêven years. IV. WD F101SSA1T MAKE THESE DIVISIONS ? IT may he afked, if Froiflart himfelf divided his hiftory in the manner we have related ? I do not doubt but he was the author of the divifion into four volumes ; for, befides that~this divifion is obferved in all the manufcripts, even thole of his own time, he occafionally cites faéfa in feme of tbefe volumes which had been, related in a former, and makes ufe of the following expreffions : € as it if mentioned in another hiftory,* or c as you have before heard related in the preceding book of this renowned excellent bHtory.* • But as for the fub-divifions of the firft volume into four, fix or eight books, they are not to be found in the moft ancient manufcripts : befides, they are not uniformly the fame in thofe wherein they occur ; 1 therefore do not hefitate to attribute them to the copyifts, who have taken this licence on themfelvcs. With regard to the chapters of each volume, and the titles of thefe chapters, they are only to be met with in the printed copies; in the manufcripts of that time, and fubfequent to it, they are different, according to the various manufcripts or printed copies ; and I fee no probability that froiflart was the author of them. One fingle pafiage may create a difficulty on this fiibjeâ? it is in the firft volume, On an occafion where the hiftorian refers you to the preceding chapter: but this pafiage is evidently a^ interpolation. Notwithftandkg it is-in A© three black-letter editions, ami iti thofe of Denys Sauvage, it is not to be found in any of the manufcripts which I have feen, with the exception of a fingle one in the national library,. number 8321, which is of the date of the latter end of the fifteenth centuryf and one of the leaft authentic copies we have* m