[597]. Froissart. Par Mary Darmesteter (Paris, 1894), p. 19.
[598]. Deschamps, a far more exclusively bookish person than Froissart, and one who has even left us, in his elaborate Art de Dittier, not the least remarkable of the formal “Poetics” referred to above, is no more of a critic in any true sense than Froissart himself—not nearly so much as Sidonius or Eberhard.
[599]. Œuvres de Froissart (Poésies), par A. Scheler, 3 vols. (Bruxelles, 1870), i. 303.
[600]. Ibid., p. 107 sq.
[601]. Cléomadès (which is possibly not unconnected with Chaucer’s Squire’s Tale) whoso will may know and (if he be of my mind) rejoice in (ed. Van Hasselt, Bruxelles, 1865). But, alas! we have not the Bailiff of Love.
[602]. Often printed: the best edition of the original Latin is, I believe, that (with French version) of M. Cocheris (Paris, 1856). The late Professor H. Morley gave one of the wide biographical excursus of his English Writers (iv. 38-58) to Bishop Richard, and included in it a pretty full abstract of the Philobiblon (or “Philobiblion”).
[603]. Without prejudice to Filocolo. We attempt not to decide such quarrels.
[604]. My friend, Mr W. J. Courthope, in the third chapter of his Life of Pope (Pope’s Works, ed. Elwin and Courthope, v. 50: London, 1889.)
[605]. Had he known Maximus Tyrius (v. supra, p. [117]), he might almost have borrowed the very words of that writer. But in the astonishingly long list of Boccaccio’s classical authorities Maximus does not, I think, occur.
[606]. Trattatello. I use the cheap and convenient ed. of the two books published by Le Monnier. (Florence, 1863; latest ed. 1895, 2 vols.)