ies of the Action."

* * * * *

The reader will note that in the latter part of the above I have
wholly abandoned the more usual account of the last three days of the
retreat from Poissy to the Somme, and that the reconstruction I have
attempted includes several matters hitherto not suggested in any
recent history, and is in contradiction with the view which has
hitherto been most generally accepted.

The evidence upon which I rely for this description of the retreat on
Acheux and subsequently on Boismont will I hope be found set out in
detail in the number of the _English Historical Review_ for October
1912. Meanwhile, I owe it to my readers, who may use this book for
purposes of school or university work, to state briefly the way in
which the matter has hitherto been set forth, and my reason for
adopting this new version.

Most Froissart MSS., which have misled history in this regard, say
that King Edward was at _Oisemont_ upon the evening of the 23rd.
Lingard, the father of all modern English historical writing, and a
man whom every historian begins by reading (though very few go on by
acknowledging him), expanded this mere reference into a whole phrase,
and wrote that Edward "had the good fortune to capture the town of
Oisemont, and so find a night's lodging." A neglect of military
conditions, or of the map, or of both, has perpetuated the error.
Edward was never at Oisemont. The argument against it, and in favour
of _Boismont_, is dependent upon a number of converging proofs, which
I will very briefly recapitulate.

(1) The MSS. of Froissart are none of them original.

(2) They vary among themselves with regard to this particular word,
most of them giving "Oisemont," but one giving "Nysemont."

(3) Even where all the MSS. agree with regard to a place, and where
Froissart certainly mentioned it, he is wildly inaccurate, evidently
going by hearsay, and often by a doubtful memory: thus he has no
idea on which side of the Seine the town of Gisors stands, and he
calls the village of Fontaine a "strong town," etc.

(4) Even were he an accurate, he is not a contemporary authority. He
had to depend entirely upon older accounts which we can prove that he
misread, or did not read at all, but only heard spoken of, an