And here I could do no better service to the American boy of the present day than by calling his attention to a certain curious and interesting connection between these present Chronicles of Froissart and Sir Thomas Malory’s History of King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table, which was written in the following century and which must some day come to be known more widely than now as one of the sweetest and strongest books in our language. The connection I mean is this: that Froissart’s Chronicle is, in a grave and important sense, a sort of continuation of Malory’s novel. For Malory’s book is, at bottom, a picture of knighthood in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; while Froissart’s is a picture of knighthood in the fourteenth century. It is true that Malory’s King Arthur is a personage, if not fabulous, at least unhistorical, while Froissart’s Edward III. is actual flesh and blood, and is almost in sight; it is true that Froissart gives us real events occurring in definite localities during the last three-quarters of the fourteenth century, while Malory drags Joseph of Arimathea alongside of Merlin the Magician, and sets Briton, Saxon, Roman, Frenchman, Scotchman, Irishman, Welshman, and Saracen face to face in scenes which often defy place and time: yet it is no less true that Froissart’s work is a continuation of Malory’s, since what Malory gives us is substantially a view of life in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which Froissart follows with a view of life in the fourteenth century. A boy who reflects that Sir Thomas Malory wrote a hundred years later than Froissart will be puzzled to know how he comes to give a picture of chivalry a hundred years earlier, until certain facts appear which show in what manner Sir Thomas Malory’s book was made, and what were the habits of the writers whom he followed.