_Froissart's Accuracy_ (Vol. viii., p. 494.).--The accuracy of Froissart as
an historian has never been questioned, says T. J. This assertion ought not
to pass without a note. If T. J. will look into Hallam's _Lit. of Europe_,
ch. iii., he will find that judicious and learned critic comparing
Froissart with Livy for "fertility of historical invention," or, in other
words, for his unhesitatingly supplying his readers with a copious and
picturesque statement of the details of events, where they were palpably
out of the reach of his knowledge.
As a gleaner of chivalrous gossip, and a painter of national manners,
Froissart is perhaps unequalled. Take up his account of a campaign on the
Scottish borders, and he relates the proceedings in his amusing style, as
if he had been behind every bush with the Scotch, and hunting for them in
vain with every English banner. But if his accuracy be inquired into, he
tells you that Carlisle, which he calls Cardoel en Gales, is on {605} the
Tyne, and was garrisoned in vain with "grand plante de Galois," to prevent
the Scotch from passing the Tyne under its walls (vol. i. ch. xviii. xix.
xxi.).
So much by way of note; but there is a Query which I should be glad to see
answered. Bayle (art. Froissart) quotes a German critic as affirming that
in the Lyons edition of Froissart, by Denys Saulvage, 1559: "Omnia quae
Aulae Gallicae displicebant, deleta, vixque decimam historiae partem
relictam esse." Does Col. Johnes notice this inaccuracy in the edition
generally procurable? And does he state whether he saw, or consulted, or
received any benefit from the existence of the MS. copy of Froissart, once
in the library of Breslaw?