THE EOYAL AETILLEEY INSTITUTION. 
299 
& assalirono lo campo del He di Francia virilmente, facendo soccare tutte le 
bombarde a uno tratto : si cliel li Franceschi si cominciarono a mettere in fuga.” 1 2 
To these statements, those holding the theory that cannon were not em¬ 
ployed in the field at so early a date, and consequently were not used in the 
battle of Cre 9 y, opposed that, in the numerous MSS. of Froissart, where he 
has related so carefully, and with such minute detail, all the events of this 
battle, no mention is made of any cannon or gunners; but, on the contrary, 
Froissart distinctly asserts that the rout of the Geneose is to be attributed 
to the English archers; and they further hold, that Froissart must have 
known if cannon were used, as he takes his version of the action and 
the march preceding it from the testimony of those actually engaged 
therein. 
A further branch of the argument is, that the portion of the Grandes 
Chroniques which contains this statement is anonymously composed, and 
consequently of little value. This would apply equally to the “Istorie 
Pistolesi.” It is also urged that Yillani, whose assertion is in fact the most 
difficult to oppose, was so far distant from the scene of action, that he cannot 
have known much about it. Besides, as Mr Hewitt says, 3 “ both writers 
may be pardoned for seeking to refer the disaster that befell their countrymen 
to the employment of some new and terrible instrument of destruction.” 
To these arguments it is replied that Yillani, at the time of the action, 
was an old man well used to courts and camps, while Froissart was only 
nine years old, and did not begin to write his chronicle till ten years later: 
and that, therefore the word of the former implies a great deal more, and is 
far more trustworthy, than the negative evidence afforded by Froissart's 
silence, which in fact, they contend, may mean nothing but that cannon were 
in such common use as not to require any special mention. 
At this stage of the argument M. F. C. Louandre in his “Histoire 
d' Abbeville et du comte de Ponthieu,” 3 published a passage from a MS. 
Froissart in the library at Amiens, the text of which is this:— 
“Et li Angles descliquerent aucuns canons qu’il avoient en la bataille pour 
esbahir les Genevois.” 
Napoleon accepts this as a genuine voucher : 4 but it will scarcely bear 
scrutiny. If it were an early MS. other transcripts would contain the same 
words, but this is unique. If it is, as is most probable, a late MS., the 
words are an interpolation, and therefore, the MS. is not a good authority. 5 
As regards the actual battle of Cre 9 y, the author has been unable to find 
any further matter bearing on the question of cannon; but we have most 
important evidence that Edward III. was supplied with cannon shortly before 
he set sail for France. This, as usual, is supplied by the accounts of the 
period, and was first discovered, part by the Bev. Joseph Hunter, 6 and part 
by Joseph Burtt, Esq., 3 assistant keepers of the Public Eecords. 
1 Muratori, Eerum Italicarum Scriptores, tom. ii. col. 616. 
2 Ancient Arms and Armour, vol. ii. p. 297. 
3 Tom I. p. 236. Paris, 1844. 
* Etudes, &c. vol. i. p. 41. 
8 Hewitt, Ancient Arms and Armour, vol. 2. p. 297. 
6 Published in Archseologia, vol. xxxii. p. 379. 
? Published in Archaeological Journal, vol. 19, p. 68. 
