Ixvîî ** Geoffry de Óhàrni had net fpoken of it to.the * king of France, for the king would never have ad* u vifed him to attempt it, on account of the truce." The Englifh again impute to Charles V. the in-traftion of "thè treaty of Bretigny, which they firft broke, if we believe the French. Far from finding any thing in Froiflart 'which favors the imputations of the Englifh, I believe that, if thè terms in which he exprefles himfeif wereftri&ly examined, they would at leaft form a pïefumption againft them. I dót hot defpair but that one day a brother academician will gjivè us kll the proofs which a found criticifm, and a mature reading of the hiftorical monuments of that age, can furnifh on a point of hiftory which is of equal confequence to the nation and to truth. The fingular combat propofed in 1354 between the kings of France and of England, is ftifl a matter of difpute between the hiftorians of the two nations. According to the French, the challenge ferit in the name of king John was not accepted by Edward ; whilft the Éngliih fay, their king dared the king of France to battle, but that he réfufed the combat': froiflart decides formally for the French. " The *' king of France," fays he,." went after him as Λ far as St. Omer, and fent a meflageto him (the^ a king of England) by the marflial d'Authain, and " by feveral other knights, that he would fight " with him, if he pleafed, body to body, or army c againft army, on any day that he would name : " but the king of England refufed the combat, and' Λ re-croffed the fea to England ; and the king of * France returned to Paris.1* e 2 To